Bought a car 3 months ago, problems not covered under warranty

BillJones

motorguy wrote: »

No.

It is their only responsibility to prove the fault was not present at the time of sale and they have documented evidence to prove it was checked.

Really, the fact that they checked a box proves that it was really checked?

How can you know that?

The garage could just check the box after a cursory inspection, or no inspection at all. Nauughty, but certainly possible.

BillJones

Charliezoo wrote: »

Sorry, I thought I'd explained earlier but I didn't.

We didn't even realise it was a clutch problem, the car has just gradually been getting slower when pulling away in 1st gear and needs quite a bit of gas to prevent it from stalling. As you lift the clutch there was no power there with normal rev balancing. This is apparently caused by the clutch being worn.

Surely you can hear that the clutch is slipping, then? If engine revs rise, but seed does not rise accordingly, then yes, your clutch is slipping, and you need to back straight off.

If you continue to drive it after that, then it will make any subsequent claim far harder to prove, as you may well damage further components that were fine at the beginning.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

Motorguy, doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself but you are wrong. Proving something was working at the time of sale is totally different to proving an inherent fault.

Look up what the SOGA act says.

Also what you are talking about on an ipad is a "warranty". A dealer only has to legally warrant the condition of the car, not put a warranty on it. If they do put a warranty on it, then there are usually exceptions for wear and tear.

To make your ipad analogy relevant. If you bought a second hand ipad and the battery went dead after 3 months, it *might* be reasonable to say that was wear and tear and expected OR that you had abused the battery in some way to reduce its life.

motorguy

sh0597 wrote: »

My thoughts are:


1) The parts will only be replaced under warranty if it can be proven there was a fault with them as they as a clutch is a wear and tear item and the condenser is liable to have been damaged. It's unlikely either of these parts will be replaced by the warranty.


2) The dealer is likely liable for repair to both parts unless there is clear evidence the damage was caused after you bought it.

1) Yes.

2) No. The dealer only has to show the fault was not present at the time of sale, not that the buyer damaged it. Check the SOGA to see what i mean.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

Op -- if you have finance CAB are basically talking about section 75 protection which makes the finance company equally liable for performance of the contract.

Personally I wouldn't recommend putting everything through the finance company. Nothing wrong in writing to the manufacturer to push for them to pay for it. If they refuse then get firm with the dealer - then get on to the finance company. They though will likely want you to provide them with an independent report. Seems to be standard procedure now with most section 75 claims

Theres a thing these days called a phone. They'll have a big call centre full of people whose purpose it is to keep customers happy. Ring them. Hassle them. They WILL react.

Write them a letter and a month later they'll write you a letter back and tell you they're looking in to it.

motorguy

sh0597 wrote: »

If the OP had paid £1K for a 12 year old car with 120K on the clock then the clutch being worn out after driving 3K miles would be reasonable.


But a 2 year old car with 12K on the clock sold for £18K, one would expect the clutch would not fail after 3K miles. So it then comes down to the dealer proving the buyer has caused the damage themselves. I would have thought they would have needed to physically inspect before the sale to prove it was in good condition. I doubt they did that.

And in an ideal world thats how it would be. However that is NOT what the SOGA says.

Please have a read at it rather than just comment on what you think might be nice to happen.

motorguy

BillJones wrote: »

Really, the fact that they checked a box proves that it was really checked?

How can you know that?

The garage could just check the box after a cursory inspection, or no inspection at all. Nauughty, but certainly possible.

If they are a main dealer and have processes in place whereby they can show they "check" specific attributes / parts of the car and they keep a log of that then they are covered, yes. They will no doubt also be able to show some mechanic having charged two hours to the car for testing or similar.

It may well be for clutch the driver takes the car round the block and its selecting gears correctly.

I know that because i raised a similar query with CAB relating to what i could do as a dealer to show a car was functioning correctly at the time of sale and they said exactly as per what that dealer is doing.

Dont forget there is a big difference between whats "nice" or "fair" and what is legally compliant.

neilmcl

motorguy wrote: »

2) No. The dealer only has to show the fault was not present at the time of sale, not that the buyer damaged it. Check the SOGA to see what i mean.

We don't disagree with this but there's a world of difference between showing something was working without issue at the time of sale and proving that an inherent fault was not present.

Clearly a clutch failing after 3 months of purchasing a car with only 12k on the clock is a premature failure and reasonably points to an inherent fault being present. The dealer simply stating it was working when it was sold is not good enough and doesn't negate their obligations under the SOGA to prove otherwise.

motorguy

neilmcl wrote: »

We don't disagree with this but there's a world of difference between showing something was working without issue at the time of sale and proving that an inherent fault was not present.

From trading standards website "the law states that if you are claiming repair, replacement, full or partial refund within the first six months of ownership, the onus is on the trader to prove that the vehicle was sold without faults when you bought it"

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/glos/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV0003-1011.txt

The car dealer has :-

1. A procedure and document showing the car was checked over including the clutch
2. The customer test drove the car
3. The customer didnt report any problem for three months
4. The previous owner - who works for them - didnt note any problems.

Not sure how much more watertight it could be from a SOGA perspective?

neilmcl wrote: »

Clearly a clutch failing after 3 months of purchasing a car with only 12k on the clock is a premature failure and reasonably points to an inherent fault being present. The dealer simply stating it was working when it was sold is not good enough and doesn't negate their obligations under the SOGA to prove otherwise.

Yes, absolutely. Shouldnt have worn out / failed so soon. The best way to handle that though is to have it out with the dealer and involve Nissan UK.

You could take your chances tell them you're going to court, their entire legal department will swing into action and 9 months later end up in court with them saying and evidencing "we check all our cars, and we take remedial action to repair any faults and look at all this evidence we have of that" and "oh, by the way heres a signed off check sheet from our senior engineer saying the clutch was checked during a test drive" and they pull out some "expert" who says that the clutch could have worn out in three months.

Yes, as a last ditch when all else fails. Right now = bad idea.

sh0597

To prove the clutch was not faulty they would need to have physically inspected it which I doubt they did. Driving the car round the block isn't proof. Neither is the customer test driving. Nor is the fault taking 3 months to become noticeable. Nor is the previous owner not reporting the fault.


Court is a last resort but I think the dealer would be nuts to let it go to court and is just hoping to fob the OP off.