dealer won't accept rejected car

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

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.



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



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.



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



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.

I suspect we're pretty much on the same wavelength here, MG, just with a different way of putting it.

The law simply says that a failure to meet the contract of sale (including description) in the first 6 months is deemed to be a failure at the time of sale unless the seller can show otherwise.

That would, on the face of it, cover a clutch failure up to the 6 month point but, as I said, it becomes easier for the dealer to argue that it wasn't a problem "at purchase" as time (or more particularly, miles) go on.

As you quite rightly say, a clutch failure 2 or 3 months after buying a 10 year old car is very unlikely to be covered because, on the (civil) balance of probability, the seller could easily show it was ok simply by saying "You've done x thousand miles, a failing clutch wouldn't have done that". That's such a straightforward "proof" that Trading Standards or the courts will accept it without question.

But say, for example, that I bought a car today, then had an accident at work and was unable to drive for 4 months having only done 100 miles in my new old car.

If, when I got behind the wheel again, the clutch started slipping immediately then SOGA would still be on my side because the dealer couldn't rely on the car sitting in a lock-up for 4 months as the reason for it wearing out.

If, on the other hand, my accident took me off the road for 6 months, then he wouldn't have to "show" anything because the onus, in law, would then be on me.

As you say, it's a bit of a grey area - not least because the law is framed in terms of time, whereas cars tend to wear in terms of miles and type of use.

Either way, I think we agree that in the OP's case 5 days is excessively short unless the dealer could show that he'd been out rallying it in that time, but getting any sort of legal result is likely to cost more in aggravation than simply paying for a new clutch!

shezza2

Manchee wrote: »

So we bought a second hand car a week ago and it's in the garage already with possible clutch issues. Spoke to the dealer about rejecting it or them paying to get it fixed but he doesn't wanna know. Basically blamed it on me. Anyway, my commute to.work is now a 6 hour round trip on public transport, so I really need this sorted asap.

I know I need to write to him but what's the best way to get this sorted asap? Should we get repairs done and claim the money back through small claims? Or do I have to give him the opportunity to ignore numerous letters and do nothing about it for months on the possibility that he might play by the rules?

I just really need transport, the dealers not helping, we can't afford endless hire cars or taxis. I just don't know what to do for the best.

So this is what you do......You put a sign in your car window
saying "Ask me why I would NOT buy another vehicle from (name of garage) call me on (phone number) and then park it outside the garage.

I have used this a couple of times in the past ten years and it worked both times.

spiro

Did you test the clutch before you bought the car? If you didn't then you 've learnt a lesson the expensive way.

Wig

The dealer only has to show that the car fitted the description when it was sold.

It is a 10 year old car, now with (presumably) a worn clutch. But at the time of sale this was not evident.

To be decided by a court:
A car, is sold as "good working order", with no evident mechanical problems at the time of sale and no burning clutch in evidence. It subsequently, within 1 week, develops a worn clutch.

Was the car in good working order when sold?
Is it satisfactory (reasonable - taking into consideration the age of the car) for it to develop a worn clutch at this point?

I would say the answer is "Yes" to both questions.

Do you have a case? I would say not.

Could you nevertheless win in court - yes you could, but it could cost you about £200 in court fees to find out. Alternatively he could back off and offer to settle after you have laid your case at court costing you only about £60.

Joe_Horner

Wig wrote: »

The dealer only has to show that the car fitted the description when it was sold.

It is a 10 year old car, now with (presumably) a worn clutch. But at the time of sale this was not evident.

No, he has to show that it "conformed to the contract", which includes the description and any other terms, including those implied by law.

SOGA section 14 imposes an implied term of "satisfactory quality", and defines that as including (amongst other matters):

(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,

(b)appearance and finish,

(c)freedom from minor defects,

(d)safety, and

(e)durability.

These matters must be considered in regard to the age, price etc of the goods sold. Whether or not a major, and necessary, component wearing out within 5 days on a £1000 car is "reasonable durability" is something the courts would ultimately have to decide but I certainly wouldn't consider it reasonably durable, and that's speaking with my retail businessman hat on, not my consumer one!