Refund for car part 2 months after purchase

dpl73

Hi


I wonder if someone can guide me, citing legislature if possible, on where I stand on getting a refund on an alternator that failed within 2 months of being fitted to the vehicle.


The item was advertised as "New, not reconditioned" with 12 months warranty from an ebay business seller (buy it now).


Obviously, a replacement or repair would be no good to me as I had to get a new one fitted after recovery by greenflag to a local garage (we were 200 miles from home when it failed).


I am concerned that the seller is insisting on replacement/repair.


Thanks all

wealdroam

dpl73 wrote: »

Hi


I wonder if someone can guide me, citing legislature if possible, on where I stand on getting a refund on an alternator that failed within 2 months of being fitted to the vehicle.


The item was advertised as "New, not reconditioned" with 12 months warranty from an ebay business seller (buy it now).


Obviously, a replacement or repair would be no good to me as I had to get a new one fitted after recovery by greenflag to a local garage (we were 200 miles from home when it failed).


I am concerned that the seller is insisting on replacement/repair.


Thanks all

The seller has every right to insist on a replacement or repair.

Only if those two options are impossible, too costly or cause significant inconvenience, is a refund appropriate.
The fact that you will be stuck with a replacement or repaired item, is not a significant inconvenience in this context.

The seller does not need to consider that you have already sourced a replacement.

Get the repaired or replaced item and sell it on ebay if you wish, or just keep it as a spare.

forgotmyname

One of the pitfalls of buying online.

ThumbRemote

wealdroam wrote: »

The seller has every right to insist on a replacement or repair.

Only if those two options are impossible, too costly or cause significant inconvenience, is a refund appropriate.
The fact that you will be stuck with a replacement or repaired item, is not a significant inconvenience in this context.

The seller does not need to consider that you have already sourced a replacement.

Get the repaired or replaced item and sell it on ebay if you wish, or just keep it as a spare.

Surely this is the whole point of the 'significant inconvenience' clause?

OP has had the car recovered by Green Flag to a garage. To get the car roadworthy they've paid for the works to be done.

The alternative was being without a car for a number of days, possibly weeks, while the seller provided a replacement. And that's assuming the garage where the car was taken were happy for it to be left there while it was sorted out - otherwise there could have been further costs involved in moving it.

Any alternative course would have caused significant inconvenience.

agrinnall

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Surely this is the whole point of the 'significant inconvenience' clause?

OP has had the car recovered by Green Flag to a garage. To get the car roadworthy they've paid for the works to be done.

The alternative was being without a car for a number of days, possibly weeks, while the seller provided a replacement. And that's assuming the garage where the car was taken were happy for it to be left there while it was sorted out - otherwise there could have been further costs involved in moving it.

Any alternative course would have caused significant inconvenience.

You might be right, but as we don't know whether the OP even attempted to give the seller an opportunity to rectify the situation in a timely manner it's a big assumption to say that they would have been without the car for a number of days or weeks.

dpl73

I suppose we're now in the realms of interpretation. Specifically "timely manner" and "significant inconvenience".

I think that without getting the item replaced it would be a fair Interpretation to say I would have been significantly inconvenienced. I.e.: we are on day 2 of a 10 day holiday, the vehicle is the tow vehicle for our caravan and our only means of transport 200 miles from home. The best the seller was likely to offer was a quick replacement, which was likely to take a minimum of 3 days to get to me. I would then have to find a garage that would agree to fit a customer supplied part a book it in. So, whatever way you look at it, I would have been without a vehicle. Whereas, the recovery, repair and return was all completed on the same day.

That aside, are there any provisions for consequential loss under consumer protection/soga?

Thanks again.

bod1467

SOGA

OlliesDad

dpl73 wrote: »

That aside, are there any provisions for consequential loss under consumer protection/soga?

Thanks again.

Yes you can claim reasonable losses under SOGA - you must mitigate these losses where possible though.

Do you still have the faulty part? It is reasonable for the supplier to demand it back in order to ascertain whether it was faulty or if another part of the car caused it to fail prematurely.

gik

Should mitigating losses not involve at least attempting to contact the seller before proceeding with the repair?

dpl73

I would normally agree, but the losses were effectively triggered at the time the part failed. I had no option but to get the vehicle recovered as it was blocking the highway. If I had followed any other course of action, the losses would have been greater.

I agree that no settlement could be entertained without the seller having the opportunity to examine the failed part and that action is available to him.

gik

dpl73 wrote: »

I would normally agree, but the losses were effectively triggered at the time the part failed. I had no option but to get the vehicle recovered as it was blocking the highway. If I had followed any other course of action, the losses would have been greater.

I agree that no settlement could be entertained without the seller having the opportunity to examine the failed part and that action is available to him.

You had breakdown cover? So no losses? Devils's Advocate speaking out loud type thing.