dealer won't accept rejected car

colino

The reality of SOGA with second hand cars is that it is bare, common sense. The trader had to be legally able to sell it to you (clear title) it was as described, was fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality. As you drove it away, the clutch worked. You still haven't provided a diagnosis for the fault and you now have to be dealing directly with the trader to make any headway at all.

cajef

Manchee wrote: »

So a perfectly good clutch could be wrecked in 5 days? Seriously?

How do you know it was a perfectly good clutch, it is a ten year old car it could have been driven by several owners, it may have been well worn and started to go after you had been driving the car for five days.

arcon5

That's totally contrary to everything we've been told.

SOGA has never covered wear and tear.

So a perfectly good clutch could be wrecked in 5 days? Seriously?

Was the clutch brand new? If so and this is how it was advertised then you do have rights. If not, when was it last replaced? The reality is you've bought a 10 year old car with god knows how many miles on (100k+ maybe?) and the clutch has probably done many Ks of miles and now nearing the end of its life. This is how cars work. You buy them, run them, things wear out, you repair it or if the repair is uneconomical to you then you buy a new car.

If though you buy a car and it develops a fault, for example, clutch goes after 100 miles (from being fitted), then it's clearly faulty. If it fails after 80k miles then usually because it's worn out. It's important to understand the difference.

Raksha

Any update on this?

LandyAndy

Rain_Shadow wrote: »

Well, you could easily have worn the clutch to that state in a week if you have driven it inappropriately. Not saying you have, just that you could have. Very hard for you to prove you aren't responsible for wear and tear like that.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Thanks to SOGA, it's not up to the OP to "prove" anything. Within the first 6 months after sale the dealer has to prove the fault wasn't there at sale.

You're having a laugh. Every trader has to replace every failed clutch in every vehicle they sell if it fails within 6 months of sale? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

motorguy

LandyAndy wrote: »

You're having a laugh. Every trader has to replace every failed clutch in every vehicle they sell if it fails within 6 months of sale? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Its worth noting the SOGA deals with faults.

This is very different from wear and tear, and whilst not talking about this instance in particular, it does seem to confuse people at times as to what their rights are.

LandyAndy

motorguy wrote: »

Its worth noting the SOGA deals with faults.

This is very different from wear and tear, and whilst not talking about this instance in particular, it does seem to confuse people at times as to what their rights are.

Exactly so.

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Its worth noting the SOGA deals with faults.

This is very different from wear and tear, and whilst not talking about this instance in particular, it does seem to confuse people at times as to what their rights are.

SOGA actually deals with goods that "do not conform to the contract of sale" within 6 months, which is subtly different to "faults" and can include wear and tear which existed, but was not evident, at the time of sale.

A clutch is a good example of this - they won't slip "until they start slipping", so they can be hanging on by a thread as you complete the contract then start to slip the moment you drive off the forecourt. That would be valid reason for repair or rejection under SOGA.

As time goes on it becomes easier for the seller to argue that the wear wasn't an issue at sale until, at 6 months, it becomes the buyer's responsibility to show that it was.

In this case, the car was sold as in "good working condition" and, 5 days later, it no longer conforms to that description (which is part of the contract). So it's for the dealer to show that the wear wasn't an (incipient) issue at the point of sale.

As I said, having the law on your side and actually getting it acted on are two entirely different things but the law is on the OP's side in this given the very short time.

colino

I bet you were in the debating team at school. If the clutch had failed on test or driving away from the garage, there would have been a legitimate claim with the garage under SOGA. There is no, "it's hanging by a thread Captain" measure of wear on a clutch. It pretty much works or not.
You seem to be advocating that there is a rule for being nearly pregnant.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

SOGA actually deals with goods that "do not conform to the contract of sale" within 6 months, which is subtly different to "faults" and can include wear and tear which existed, but was not evident, at the time of sale.

No.

A worn out clutch some months down the line on say a ten year old car will not fall under the 'not as described' clause. I spoke to trading standards directly about this and the rule of thumb they advise people to use is 'if i had bought the car new, would it be reasonable to expect to have to replace the part at this age?'. So say, having to fit a new clutch on a 10 year old car would be quite normal. BUT if it happened a day after i got the car, then yes, as a buyer i would be saying that the goods werent as described as they werent described as needing a new clutch.

Very grey area by the way.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

A clutch is a good example of this - they won't slip "until they start slipping", so they can be hanging on by a thread as you complete the contract then start to slip the moment you drive off the forecourt. That would be valid reason for repair or rejection under SOGA.

It would be reasonable to say at that point that the car was not as described.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

As time goes on it becomes easier for the seller to argue that the wear wasn't an issue at sale until, at 6 months, it becomes the buyer's responsibility to show that it was.

No.

Definitely not.

You would not be able to make a clutch being worn out 'stick' under the SOGA after say, 5 1/2 months. See the rule of thumb above.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

In this case, the car was sold as in "good working condition" and, 5 days later, it no longer conforms to that description (which is part of the contract). So it's for the dealer to show that the wear wasn't an (incipient) issue at the point of sale.

Yes. In this case. You could potentially reject it as you dont 'accept' a car until you've owned it for roughly a month.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

As I said, having the law on your side and actually getting it acted on are two entirely different things but the law is on the OP's side in this given the very short time.

Yup. In this case. However i brought the point up as i've had people come back to me with a used car and say "it shouldnt need a clutch as i've only had the car two months', forgetting of course that the car is say 7 years old and the car has been there for 70K miles.