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

motorguy

sh0597 wrote: »

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

So do i. Totally. Dealer should sort it. Completely unreasonable on a car that age and price.

I just dont think that going down the SOGA route as a first move is a good idea.

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

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!



Clearly fails here.

Are you actually reading my posts or do you just like arguing on the internet??

You said "if no manufacturers warranty was given a consumer has no rights."

I said "No, if apple didnt provide a warranty then the customer would have statutory rights under the SOGA."

And you replied, no, no, no, its actually this "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"

ie, a warranty is over and above a customers statutory rights.

sh0597

motorguy wrote: »

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

I don't see why it is relevant to this thread to be honest. Nobody said the judge always sides with the consumer. In that thread we have a lack of details but it seems the buyer bought a 14 year old car with 88K miles, drove it for a few months then decided they fancied a refund because of faults that you would reasonably expect on a 14 year old car.

arcon5

And we're saying you are wrong - a checklist simply isn't good enough in this instance. Even if the clutch wasn't faulty at the time of sale then op has rights as to its durability based on what a reasonable person would expect based on xyz.
It's a 12k mile car... hardly disputable that it shouldn't have failed this early.

Op may get a smoother resolution from other tactics - doesn't change the fact op has statutory rights and your giving misleading advice about how ops protected by law

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

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.

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!



Clearly fails here.

So heres one for you then

As per your recommendation, the O/P goes down the legal route straight away and six month later ends up in court.

Dealer says

"heres our procedure for checking faults before a car goes out"
"heres 50 examples of how when we find a fault we fix it"
"heres the document produced during the inspection - clutch checked, no fault"

They then bring in some expert who says "well, yes, a clutch could be burnt out in three months if someone was unfamiliar with a new car, not used to sitting upright, perhaps riding the clutch, etc, etc"

They then also produce historical docs showing how in the past they've had to replace clutches on various new cars after 3000 miles because of misuse by the customer. (i've seen clutches burnt out on new cars in less time)

Also, the customer tried to claim for a new air con condenser off their warranty but it turned out that it had been damaged when they owned the car - probably by a stone.

And they then say "well we told the customer to contact our head office and they never bothered, they just took this to court"

Wheres your "fair wear and tear now"?

Are you really standing by "take this straight to court, you will win"??

motorguy

arcon5 wrote: »

And we're saying you are wrong - a checklist simply isn't good enough in this instance.

Sorry, whos "we"??

You'll note that anyone with ACTUAL experience questioned the clutch being a wear and tear item up front?

Also, the checklist info came from CAB when i talked to them. Do you think the dealer keeps those for fun or is it because they know it gives them cover??

arcon5 wrote: »

Op may get a smoother resolution from other tactics - doesn't change the fact op has statutory rights and your giving misleading advice about how ops protected by law

I'm not - i'm saying dont go down the SOGA route as your first option. It is not totally watertight.

motorguy

Heres another traders response from Page 1 - totally in agreement with what i have said.

colino wrote: »

I would certainly be squealing at their Dealer Principal on needing such expensive repairs on such a new car, but realistically the clutch will be put down to wear and tear and if the condenser will be holed (flying stone) and not really a warranty item.
I hope for the best, but I'm pretty sure they'll palm you off with a, "gesture of goodwill."

This is not us siding with the dealer, its giving an insight on how the dealer will play this out.

motorguy

As per colino, heres my view on how it will end, if the O/P shouts loud enough.

The condenser will get covered under warranty, even if it has a hole from damage, they'll get it through the warranty system.

Nissan UK will make a contribution towards the £900 clutch bill.

The dealer will make a contribution.

The O/P will be asked to pay £300 ish of it all.

Charliezoo

Santander finance contacted me today and confirmed that it was their responsibility to investigate this and seek a resolution with Nissan. They have emailed a list of documentation that we need to return to them as well as a detailed questionnaire regarding the history of the car since we bought it, etc.

I telephoned Nissan UK today and they passed the details onto a case manager who did telephone me back but unfortunately I was in a meeting and unable to speak to him so I'll follow that up first thing. The CAB made it clear that our dealings are with Santander and not Nissan or the dealership but I reported it to them anyway in the hope it might get things moving more quickly.

We still have the courtesy car but I'm expecting the dealer to be asking for it back very soon. It means we'll be without a car for an unknown amount of time, I'm unsure of what we can do about this and are obviously anxious to have our car back fixed.

In regards to the car being badly driven, we previously owned a Nissan Juke with the same 1.5 DCi engine that was very similar to drive. This was purchased brand new from the same dealership and we owned it for 3 years before trading it in for the Qashqai with no clutch problems or any wear and tear issues at all. This of course should all be on the dealership's database and I'm hoping it will go some way to show that we haven't burnt out a clutch on a very similar car in the past and we were familiar with similar Nissan's. We also owned a Nissan Navara for the same duration and this was jointly traded in for the Qashqai. Although from another dealership we again had no clutch problems in the time we were driving it.

nobbysn*ts

motorguy wrote: »

Sorry, whos "we"??

You'll note that anyone with ACTUAL experience questioned the clutch being a wear and tear item up front?

Also, the checklist info came from CAB when i talked to them. Do you think the dealer keeps those for fun or is it because they know it gives them cover??



I'm not - i'm saying dont go down the SOGA route as your first option. It is not totally watertight.

Jeez, give it a rest. Read every other post on here. You're wrong as usual.