Car bought in Feb, Air Con not working, where do we stand?

Tilt

opinions4u wrote: »

I personally think your only comeback on the dealer is goodwill. And it's unlikely that they'll be interested.

Sale of Goods Act gives you a right to return the car within a "reasonable period" if it is unsatisfactory. I think three months is well beyond reasonable. I'd suggest that the situation you had with the brakes was reason enough to return, but you chose not to.

The law isn't specific as to the definition of reasonable though. So it's worth asking the dealer what they're prepared to do about it. You may get a contribution to costs without admission of liability.

If you are still unhappy with the outcome you could pursue them via the Small Claims Court.

But I think a court would rule against you.

Obviously you are not aware of the extent to which the SOGA covers used car sales.

The consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003.

So if the car was advertised as having a/c, the OP should follow may advice in my earlier post. Im not going to get into the other argument because it will not assist the OP what-so-ever. I do agree however that it may be too late to actually reject the car but from how I see it, the seller is liable to rectify.

s_b

tilt trust me i agree with you in principle in all you say but in this case even trading standards wont pursue
its a dead parrot made worse by the fact the owners cleaned the cage

Tilt

s_b wrote: »

tilt trust me i agree with you in principle in all you say but in this case even trading standards wont pursue
its a dead parrot made worse by the fact the owners cleaned the cage

With respect, you can't possibly know that. All it will take is a phone call for the OP to find out.

Wig

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously you are not aware of the extent to which the SOGA covers used car sales.

The consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003.

So if the car was advertised as having a/c, the OP should follow may advice in my earlier post. Im not going to get into the other argument because it will not assist the OP what-so-ever. I do agree however that it may be too late to actually reject the car but from how I see it, the seller is liable to rectify.

Yes, and a court could very easily IMHO rule that a non working air-con on a used car of XX years old with XXXXX miles on the clock costing £XXXX (still unknown at this point) is satisfactory. It's hardly an essential item.

Yes if it was adertised with air-con you would have more on your side but still would not neccesarily win. It could also be advertised as being blue, but it may be blue with scratches and rust.
But there is the other issue in post #13 was the air-con advertised or confirmed as being in good working order?

As an aside, OP said the climate control worked during test drive, -I dunno- but doesn't this mean that the air con was working? my understanding of climate control is that it cools/heats the car to your desired preset temperature, nothing about "February" would stop you from testing this function fully AFAIK.


sb in the thread is also possibly slightly incorrect. Where he said this:

the advice is very clear you cannot have a car repaired somewhere else and then go back to supplying dealer

You cannot normally reject a car once you have accepted it. Acceptance would include taking actions on the car yourself such as arranging for an independant repairer or repairing it yourself. Repairing a specific fault yourself without going through the retailer would normally stop you from getting your costs back from the retailer. but only for that specific fault, if a different fault came to light you could IMHO still go back to the retailer and ask them to repair it under warranty or SOGA.

In this particular case -for the purposes of SOGA- it would have to be decided if "re-gassing" was first a "repair" and secondly if the subsequent corroded pipe could be considered to have been previously attempted to be repaired by the re-gassing. I think not, on both points.

I also think that sb's posts have been helpful & polite for the most part.

Flyboy152

moonrakerz wrote: »

Pointless ! The MoT covers the state of the vehicle on the day it was tested - no more. It is NOT a guarantee that the vehicle is in good order for the next 12 months.

Don't bother trying to grab them by the nether regions, you are wasting your time.

But it can tell if the fault has been there for a while, rather than just yesterday.

Flyboy152

s_b wrote: »

• The car has been to another place or repair and the original seller can use this to say the aircon obviously was maybe probably damaged while it was there and seeing as its june on monday the buyer should have made them aware of the aircon fault much sooner, plus they had it regassed and the regasser is breaking the law by filling a receiver that has a large hole in it
  
  
• me thinks too much emphasis is put on soga rather than standing back and seeing and reading all the facts

The seller can say whatever he likes, but he has to prove his assumption.

Flyboy152

EdGasket wrote: »

In my experience air-con often doesn't work in older cars. How old is the car? Must be a few years old if the pipes have rusted. Was it advertised as having working air conditioning?

:wall:

Whether or not it is a brand new car, or a hundred years old, the fact that it has an air conditioning system, it is supposed to work. Surely you really don't belive that because the seller didn't specifically point out that the air conditioning was working, it exonerates him from providing the buyer with their full consumer rights?

Flyboy152

opinions4u wrote: »

I personally think your only comeback on the dealer is goodwill. And it's unlikely that they'll be interested.

Sale of Goods Act gives you a right to return the car within a "reasonable period" if it is unsatisfactory. I think three months is well beyond reasonable. I'd suggest that the situation you had with the brakes was reason enough to return, but you chose not to.

The law isn't specific as to the definition of reasonable though. So it's worth asking the dealer what they're prepared to do about it. You may get a contribution to costs without admission of liability.

If you are still unhappy with the outcome you could pursue them via the Small Claims Court.

But I think a court would rule against you.

You're flipping right it isn't. In fact, in these circumstances, three moths is perfectly reasonable, seeing as the air condition was needed until the weather got warmer.

Your assumptions regarding the SOGA are a little skewed I'm afraid, because it doesn't just cover "rejection." As has been pointed out, several times on these boards, it is assumed that, for the first six months, any fault was present at the point of sale, unless the seller can prove otherwise.

Flyboy152

s_b wrote: »

the other place of repair is obviously your back garden then

to reiterate---remember im quoting from what YOU have already told us

youve changed discs and pads yourselves
youve regassed the aircon yourselves from i suppose a can you bought of a man that says it cures all ills
and then you have the cheek to look for help from supplying dealer who sold you this in february?
no wonder the s/h motor trade in this country gets such a bad press if journalists come to sites as good as this one and only see posts like this

cajef wrote: »

Have you got anything useful to add to this thread rather than having a go at OP, they came on here for advise not to be ranted at, try reading the forum etiquette.

I thonk s b could do with taking some time out, to study the Sale of Goods Act as well.

Flyboy152

Wig wrote: »

Yes, and a court could very easily IMHO rule that a non working air-con on a used car of XX years old with XXXXX miles on the clock costing £XXXX (still unknown at this point) is satisfactory. It's hardly an essential item.

Yes if it was adertised with air-con you would have more on your side but still would not neccesarily win. It could also be advertised as being blue, but it may be blue with scratches and rust.
But there is the other issue in post #13 was the air-con advertised or confirmed as being in good working order?

As an aside, OP said the climate control worked during test drive, -I dunno- but doesn't this mean that the air con was working? my understanding of climate control is that it cools/heats the car to your desired preset temperature, nothing about "February" would stop you from testing this function fully AFAIK.


sb in the thread is also possibly slightly incorrect. Where he said this:

You cannot normally reject a car once you have accepted it. Acceptance would include taking actions on the car yourself such as arranging for an independant repairer or repairing it yourself. Repairing a specific fault yourself without going through the retailer would normally stop you from getting your costs back from the retailer. but only for that specific fault, if a different fault came to light you could IMHO still go back to the retailer and ask them to repair it under warranty or SOGA.

In this particular case -for the purposes of SOGA- it would have to be decided if "re-gassing" was first a "repair" and secondly if the subsequent corroded pipe could be considered to have been previously attempted to be repaired by the re-gassing. I think not, on both points.

I also think that sb's posts have been helpful & polite for the most part.

It doesn't matter what it was advertised with, the very fact that the system is there, is sufficient to expect it to work.

Rejection can happened six months after the purchase. If there was an inherent fault in the car that kept occurring after the point of sale, it is reasonable to assume that the purchaser can reject the goods.