Audi GEARBOX fault within 3 months of purchase

Hammyman

rev_henry wrote: »

Dealers are still bound by the Sale of Goods Act when selling to the public, even if they write 'sold as seen' or 'trade sale'. Whether the gearbox failure would be seen by a judge as unreasonable I'm not sure. A gearbox isn't usually a consumable item is it? So it should reasonably be expected to last the life of the car.

Manufacturers expected lifetime is less than 9 years/100,000 miles...

Bartlett v Sidney Marcus (1965) is quite an interesting, relevant case although its worth pointing out this was about a failed CLUTCH not gearbox.

So its completely irrelevant then as its a case about a consumable...

vaio

Generally, Sale of Goods requires merchantable quality, reasonably durable and faults to be repaired without cost or inconvenience to the buyer. I can't see any sensible person arguing that less than the months qualifies as reasonably durable on a £6.5k car.

The "without cost or inconvenience to the buyer" bit means they need to collect it and (arguably) give you replacement car whilst yours is away. If they won't do this I be inclined to get it repaired locally and then recover the costs from the seller (via small claims if necessary).

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

is a guide for traders but covers everything you need to know.

Wh05apk

[QUOTE=vaio;47176471]Generally, Sale of Goods requires merchantable quality, reasonably durable and faults to be repaired without cost or inconvenience to the buyer. I can't see any sensible person arguing that less than the months qualifies as reasonably durable on a £6.5k car.

The "without cost or inconvenience to the buyer" bit means they need to collect it and (arguably) give you replacement car whilst yours is away. If they won't do this I be inclined to get it repaired locally and then recover the costs from the seller (via small claims if necessary).

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

is a guide for traders but covers everything you need to know.[/QUOTE]

In this case, it would seem the fault was not present at purchase, and has occured since, can't see this would be covered on a "sold as seen" purchase, fair enough if the fault appeared within a few days, but not after 3 months, on a 9 year old car, cars break, that's why they depreciate to reflect the wear and tear.

vaio

Dealers can't use "sold as seen" to evade their responsibilities to consumers under sale of goods, .

In fact, Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 seems to make it a criminal offence to do so.

As I said above, no sensible person would argue that less than three months was a reasonable amount of time for a £6.5k car to remain usable. Additionally, one of the amendments to SOG makes the assumption that faults that appear within 6 months of the sale are assumed to be there at the time of sale and places the onus on the dealer to prove otherwise. "it was working when we sold it" might work on a £500 car, it certainly wouldn't on a £6.5k car.

Hammyman

vaio wrote: »

Generally, Sale of Goods requires merchantable quality, reasonably durable and faults to be repaired without cost or inconvenience to the buyer. I can't see any sensible person arguing that less than the months qualifies [£6.5k car.

Its a 9 year old car and we don't know the mileage. My Mondeo is over 2 years newer and has 160k on the clock. Would I be able to claim if I bought the car with that mileage on?

Or what about my former Capri that was 25 years old but only 80k on the clock?

Its not just the price you pay but the age and mileage that is important too.

If it is a 9 year old car with average mileage, so around 100,000 to 120,000 and the price was "the going rate" for the spec, age and mileage then you're going to struggle to make a claim whether the going rate is £6k or £60k because you haven't paid an inflated price over the market average.

People seem to think that the price refers to whether you paid £100 for something or £10,000. It doesn't. The price factor is based on the market value of that particular item. For example if the going rate for a second hand model X of a laptop was £200 and you paid £250 because it is sold at a premium because it is in a better condition you would reasonably expect it to last longer. However if the going rate for a second hand model X of a laptop was £1000 and you paid £1000 then you cannot have any inflated expectation even though you can buy brand new model Y laptops for 1/4 of the price.

At 9 years old the car is approaching the end of its servicable life and things like this can be expected to happen. At 100,000 miles the car is approaching the end of its servicable life and things like this can be expected to happen. In another year the anti-corrosion warranty runs out and you may find rust appearing in the next couple of years.
Welcome to the world of "bargain banger" ownership which is, age wise, just about where your car is reaching.

By all means take him to court but all he has to do is say that it is a 9 year old used car near the end of its service life and its going to have faults occur from time to time and that when he sold it there wasn't a fault which, by your own admission, there wasn't.

alx33277

check out ...direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Buyingacar-yourconsumerrights/DG_183047

Hammyman

vaio wrote: »

As I said above, no sensible person would argue that less than three months was a reasonable amount of time for a £6.5k car to remain usable.

And as I've said, no sensible person would argue that at 9 years old or 100,000 miles that a car isn't going to develop faults.

I don't know why you're pointing out the price he paid when it is the going rate for them...

Silk

I agree the £6.5k is not relevant realy without knowing the mileage etc.
For the same money you could get say a 3 year old Clio with 18k on the clock and yes you would not expect a gearbox to go ...but a nine year old car with maybe 100/120k as Hammy says is not unrealistic to expect problems.

My personal veiw is to buy a car for £6.5k without taking any warrenty is madness especialy with something as expensive to repair as a TT.

I can understand the garage wanting to see it before commiting as for all they know it could just have competed in the Dakar Rally.

The garage have now offered to look at it and "take it from there" so maybe the OP will be able to split the bill with them.

If I was the OP I'd be taking it back and sorting it from there because it's going nowhere at the moment

funkycoldribena

vaio wrote: »

Generally, Sale of Goods requires merchantable quality, reasonably durable and faults to be repaired without cost or inconvenience to the buyer. I can't see any sensible person arguing that less than the months qualifies as reasonably durable on a £6.5k car.

The "without cost or inconvenience to the buyer" bit means they need to collect it and (arguably) give you replacement car whilst yours is away. If they won't do this I be inclined to get it repaired locally and then recover the costs from the seller (via small claims if necessary).

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

is a guide for traders but covers everything you need to know.

Pretty much the only correct advice on this thread.
No such thing as sold as seen-illegal.6.5k car should last more than 3 mths and I expect most courts in the land would agree.

vaio

funkycoldribena wrote: »

Pretty much the only correct advice on this thread......

what a well informed and intelligent post

funkycoldribena wrote: »

......No such thing as sold as seen-illegal......

Yep, it's a criminal offence under Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976 (as amended)

funkycoldribena wrote: »

......£6.5k car should last more than 3 mths and I expect most courts in the land would agree.

I'd be surprised if ANY court agreed that under three months was a reasonable amount of time for a £6.5k car to last

Generally (and particularly given the nature of this site), it always amazes me how many posters come out and say things along the lines of "nothing you can do, just suck it up" etc whilst completely ignoring the hard fought for consumer protection legislation that has made its way onto the statute books over the years