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

motorguy

sh0597 wrote: »

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.

Well then every car dealer should cover every part in a car? Bulb blows - well it must have had an inherent fault. CD Player stops working - well the dealer didnt take it apart and check every component.

Sorry. Doesnt work like that.

And you may have a view and i may have a similar view about whats fair but going to court is a very expensive way to win an argument.

motorguy

Just in case you think its all plain sailing at court for the consumer - have a read at this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4935463

sh0597

I just think the dealer is liable in this instance. I'm not a judge though.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I think any reasonable person would say that 12000 miles is not fair wear and tear (not just wear and tear, fair wear and tear). For a clutch to go from supposedly sound to fail in 3000 miles is very dubious and I would expect that if it was trashed within 3000 miles by the driver then they would be complaining of smoke trails as they drove along.

The clutch could have failed for a number of reasons. The symptoms don't sound quite right for a slipping clutch, stalling is the last thing you normally get, you normally get revs suddenly rising and it is not so much a lack of power as acceleration, and if you floor it then it would hit the rev limiter and be extremely noisy, and in lower gears will slip even though the clutch is fully released.

I do wonder if there is something else wrong with the car if the performance is abysmal as opposed to not very good.

The repair obviously needs doing. The dealer has a potential liability and the issue is that either the clutch has worn extremely quickly or there is another fault which has caused the clutch to wear or slip. I don't think we can diagnose by Internet. I would ask that the repair is done and the parts kept for independent inspection if they will not play ball. Then, if you get nowhere you'll need to find some expert who will say what has caused the failure in their opinion. You can then go after the finance company as they are jointly and severally liable.

You may have to go through small claims, which is not that difficult and if the garage are not feeling confident is usually the point that they realise that you mean business and will not be fobbed off.

My Golf has had two learners and ANOther who is more of an automatic driver and they have not destroyed the clutch in 80,000 miles, even though I see some poor driving techniques like cornering with the clutch dipped.

arcon5

motorguy wrote: »

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.

Rights under a warranty and sales of goods act are completely different. And no, i'm not referring to the warranty. In fact warrantys are usually provided by third partys ie the manufacturer.
So in the iPad example, if no manufacturers warranty was given a consumer has no rights.

Your understanding of consumer protection law is flawed completely. I suggest you read through this very website amongst many more to change this.

arcon5

motorguy wrote: »

Just in case you think its all plain sailing at court for the consumer - have a read at this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4935463

That threads meaningless - we barely know anything about that individuals circumstances. And it's highly unlikely to have been a near-new car with just 12k on the clock.

Scenario:
customer buys 6 month old car from dealer with only 5k miles on the clock. The manufacturer isn't offering a warranty on the car for whatever reason (say they've gone bust or disowned that model or whatever).
a week later a conrod blows a hole in the engine block. On inspection it's found oil level was correct and the car was only ever used in a reasonable manner and as it was intended.

So to clarify, you genuinely (but wrongly) believe that in the above example the customer would have NO rights whatsoever, simply because the engine was running correctly at the time of sale..

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

That threads meaningless - we barely know anything about that individuals circumstances. And it's highly unlikely to have been a near-new car with just 12k on the clock.

Its an example of just because you think you're "right" and go to court, the judge doesnt always side with the customer.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

Rights under a warranty and sales of goods act are completely different. And no, i'm not referring to the warranty. In fact warrantys are usually provided by third partys ie the manufacturer.
So in the iPad example, if no manufacturers warranty was given a consumer has no rights.

Your understanding of consumer protection law is flawed completely. I suggest you read through this very website amongst many more to change this.

*sigh*

If apple didnt provide a warranty then the customer would have statutory rights under the SOGA.

I think its very much you who needs to read up.

arcon5

motorguy wrote: »

*sigh*

If apple didnt provide a warranty then the customer would have statutory rights under the SOGA.

I think its very much you who needs to read up.

A warranty or guarantee is concurrent to statutory rights - a warranty cannot override nor replace statutory rights.

Maybe you need to have a read of parliaments guides to SOGA as much as anything because your understanding is significantly off track if you think a warranty replaces statutory rights.

However, if a good has an inherent fault, the retailer cannot evade responsibility by simply referring the consumer to a manufacturer’s guarantee. A guarantee does not replace or limit a customer’s statutory rights. Consumers are entitled to rely on the remedies available to them under sale of goods legislation rather than their rights under a guarantee if they wish.

1.4 A manufacturer’s product warranty
There is no obligation on manufacturers to offer warranties (or guarantees). Any rights of redress against the manufacturer, given to the consumer under a product warranty, are in addition to their statutory rights against the retailer. This means that the retailer (not the manufacturer) should be their first port of call when a product turns out to be faulty. It would be misleading for a retailer to tell a consumer that they can do nothing simply because there is a valid warranty with the manufacturer; the consumer has statutory rights against the retailer. Similarly, the fact that a warranty has expired does not mean that the consumer’s statutory rights have been extinguished. The SGA 1979 imposes strict liability on the seller; therefore the seller is legally required to assist the consumer if there is a defect with the product.

Consumers cannot expect a legal remedy in respect of:
 fair wear and tear;
 misuse or accidental damage; or
 if they decide they no longer want the item.

Note the word 'fair'. It's not fair, nor reasonable for a clutch to last this period of time..

SOGA has terms with regards to fitness for purpose, implied quality and lasting a reasonable length of time. Ops situation could fit in to all these implied terms!

For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

Clearly fails here.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

That threads meaningless - we barely know anything about that individuals circumstances. And it's highly unlikely to have been a near-new car with just 12k on the clock.

Scenario:
customer buys 6 month old car from dealer with only 5k miles on the clock. The manufacturer isn't offering a warranty on the car for whatever reason (say they've gone bust or disowned that model or whatever).
a week later a conrod blows a hole in the engine block. On inspection it's found oil level was correct and the car was only ever used in a reasonable manner and as it was intended.

So to clarify, you genuinely (but wrongly) believe that in the above example the customer would have NO rights whatsoever, simply because the engine was running correctly at the time of sale..

Because it was such a short time after purchase it would be deemed by its very nature to have been present at the time of sale.

Also, a conrod is not a wear and tear item and you would expect them to last the life time of the car.

And for clarification - again - i am not saying the customer should not have this resolved, i am saying that forcing it down the SOGA route is not a guarantee of success because already we have seen - and as i predicted as it happens - that the dealer would say they had a checklist that showed they had confirmed the clutch was functioning correctly at the time of sale.

The most likely route to a quick resolution is involve nissan UK and keep the pressure on the local dealer to sort it out. I would not be phoning or writing to "head office".

Only if that absolutely fails would i be getting the work done elsewhere and putting a claim in against them - as the very last resort.

I personally would not be giving up - i would torture them relentlessly and make them feel very uncomfortable until you got a resolution.

But bypassing the opportunity for a quick resolution and going straight for the long haul take-them-to-court route would be a bad idea because i dont necessarily think this is a watertight SOGA problem and i think the dealer knows that - hence the "oh heres our paperwork"