Used car breakdown after 500 miles... rights?

Richard53

Ultrasonic wrote: »

How would removing the filler cap help? Is there some mechanism that might stop fuel flow relating to the filler cap that I'm missing?

Happens a lot with bikes (usually the vent tube running from the cap to the exterior, although when it happened to me it was a simple hole in the cap that I had blocked with metal polish). But it's more noticeable given the smaller tank and shorter lengths of pipe involved. Any vacuum shows itself more quickly. On a car with a big (50 litre as against 15 litre) tank I would have thought it would take a lot longer for a blockage to show up as fuel starvation. Usually, when it happens to a bike it won't prevent starting, but causes misfiring under high speed use, when the engine is demanding more than the blocked fuel supply can give. I very much doubt if it would prevent a car from starting (or, rather, firing and then refusing to run).

vaio

motorguy wrote: »

The way i had it explained to me was as follows "if you had bought the car new, and had driven it since then, would it be reasonable for this part to wear out at this point in the cars life?"

I think in the case of yours, the answer is yes.

That question came from Trading Standards by the way.

arcon5 wrote: »

Brilliant quote there. With all the 'do I have any rights' threads popping up around here and too many offering inaccurate legal advise, this pretty much sums it all up in one sentence.

That's nonsense...if it were true then there would be no consumer protection on anything 3 years old/100k miles as pretty much anything can fail at that sort of age/miles.

SoG is nice and clear, the goods are required to last a reasonable amount of time taking into account the circumstances.

If you spend £10k on a four year old 100k miles car and it fails in a month the dealer needs to fix it and if he doesn't then SoG will be on your side.

If it's a £1k car that fails after 10 months it's a different story.

All depends on what is reasonable in the circumstances

Have a read of http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

is a guide for traders and gives all the details you need, second hand goods & cars on page 17.

motorguy

vaio wrote: »

That's nonsense...if it were true then there would be no consumer protection on anything 3 years old/100k miles as pretty much anything can fail at that sort of age/miles.

SoG is nice and clear, the goods are required to last a reasonable amount of time taking into account the circumstances.

If you spend £10k on a four year old 100k miles car and it fails in a month the dealer needs to fix it and if he doesn't then SoG will be on your side.

If it's a £1k car that fails after 10 months it's a different story.

All depends on what is reasonable in the circumstances

Have a read of http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

is a guide for traders and gives all the details you need, second hand goods & cars on page 17.

You've got yourself confused. On page 17 of that doc your quoting its talking about "faults". A "fault" is different from wear and tear.

And yes it fully takes into account circumstances - its reasonable to expect parts to wear out.

AdrianC

vaio wrote: »

If you spend £10k on a four year old 100k miles car and it fails in a month the dealer needs to fix it

Depends on the failure, surely? Or would you expect a 4yo, 100k mile car to be as fault-free and perfect as a brand spanker?

Is there also any expectation when you consider the price vs the normal range of prices for that car?

Would there be a difference in your expectations between a £10k 4yo 100k Aston Martin and a £10k 4yo 100k upper-repmobile?

vaio

yep, depends on circumstances (or as SoG puts it "taking into account price and description)

Generally, I can't see anyway a £10k car that fails in a month is reasonable even if it has done 100k miles

(fails = something major that prevents the car being used, cambelt/clutch etc etc, be a different story if say wiper blade split)

If you come across any 4 yo £10k Aston Martins please let me know

AdrianC

vaio wrote: »

If you come across any 4 yo £10k Aston Martins please let me know

Oh, they'll be out there. If you're lucky, it might even be Cat C rather than B. Don't forget the forklift to load it.

nobbysn*ts

Classic thread. Used car dealers - you've no rights, we can sell any s**t we want to, just pay out for repairs, don't even go to trading standards, we're quoting them, trust us, we're you're best mate, honest. Rest of the real world - yes, it actually has to actually work beyond the gates with the rabid dog locked in at night.

motorguy

vaio wrote: »

yep, depends on circumstances (or as SoG puts it "taking into account price and description)

Generally, I can't see anyway a £10k car that fails in a month is reasonable even if it has done 100k miles

(fails = something major that prevents the car being used, cambelt/clutch etc etc, be a different story if say wiper blade split)

If you come across any 4 yo £10k Aston Martins please let me know

If a clutch goes on a 100K £10,000 car after a month it is most certainly wear and tear.

If you bought a car new, drove it for 100,000 miles in 4 years and the clutch went, you wouldnt see it as anything other than wear and tear.

A dealer may well chose to do the repair but they are certainly not obliged to under the SOGA.

What you might be able to argue is "not fit for purpose"

motorguy

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Classic thread. Used car dealers - you've no rights, we can sell any s**t we want to, just pay out for repairs, don't even go to trading standards, we're quoting them, trust us, we're you're best mate, honest. Rest of the real world - yes, it actually has to actually work beyond the gates with the rabid dog locked in at night.

You mean those people who actually have to deal with the law day in day out, as opposed to what some people think on the internet?

Show me where in the SOGA it says you have to cover wear and tear.

motorguy

vaio wrote: »

Generally, I can't see anyway a £10k car that fails in a month

Its not what you think though, its down to the SOGA.

In fact, its down to the interpretation of the SOGA by a judge, not by you not the customer, not by Consumer Direct and not by trading standards.

So if there is a problem the only absolute way to get a definitive answer is to take it to court.