Used Car Dealer and Consumer Rights?

Spicy_McHaggis

Tican wrote: »

This is the point I was trying to get at :money:

Have you spoken to Vauxhall about the intervals?

I thought things like that were just check on service unless it's written in your service book to change them.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Have you spoken to Vauxhall about the intervals?

I thought things like that were just check on service unless it's written in your service book to change them.

Google is your friend. Depending on what engine it is it appears that the auxiliary belt should be changed between 80 and 100k miles. If it was changed at 62k then it should be good for another 90k at least.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Google is your friend. Depending on what engine it is it appears that the auxiliary belt should be changed between 80 and 100k miles. If it was changed at 62k then it should be good for another 90k at least.

Well a consumable part has warn out. Are you gong to suggest court again?

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Well a consumable part has warn out. Are you gong to suggest court again?

No, OP should first give the seller the opportunity to inspect and rectify. After a mere 2k miles, seller should be willing to rectify.

s_b

an auxillary belt and tensioner is a serviceable item,if buyer of car wanted this to be new he/she should have made it a condition of sale to be changed prior to collection of vehicle at pos,neither warranty company,seller or indeed the fitter or manufacturer of belt is liable in this case

Tilt

s_b wrote: »

an auxillary belt and tensioner is a serviceable item,if buyer of car wanted this to be new he/she should have made it a condition of sale to be changed prior to collection of vehicle at pos,neither warranty company,seller or indeed the fitter or manufacturer of belt is liable in this case

Unfortunately your opinion is flawed. It would depend a lot on how the car was advertised for a start which you have no way of knowing.

The SOGA is designed to protect consumers who have less (or no) knowledge of what they are buying than that of the trader selling the goods. It would be an easy enough argument for the OP to put forward that he/she had no idea what an auxiliary belt is let alone whether it should be replaced or not. It is reasonable to acknowledge that a consumer goes to a dealer/trader due to the fact they expect the dealer to be the expert and the consumer to be the novice.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPURs) specifically informs used car dealers what measures they should take to avoid falling foul of the regs taking into account of the above.

One such area is what pre-checks of the vehicle they are selling they should be making which includes any potential outstanding or upcoming service scheduled tasks to be performed, something the consumer is not going to know. I note that the OP was aware that the belt was last changed at 62k miles in 2013. The obvious question is how does he know this? I assume that the information was part of the advertising description which brings me to the advice I have given.

You are, however correct that the warranty company isn't liable. But I think you will find the seller could be. Why "could be?" Well on re-reading the OP's posts it appears that he has taken the car elsewhere other than the seller for attention. This of course will provide a defence for the seller as to he wasn't given the opportunity to mitigate his losses by having the opportunity to inspect and rectify the car in the first instance. That dosn't mean however, that the OP's case is completely dead in the water, it just means that any full claim may have been prejudiced.

But at the end of the day, ultimately it would be for a court to decide whether the seller is liable or not and a lot depends on the age of the car and the price paid which all reflects on the expectation of the 'satisfactory quality' it is under the SOGA.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

[...] a lot depends on the age of the car and the price paid which all reflects on the expectation of the 'satisfactory quality' it is under the SOGA.

4 years old, £6.5k paid, and either premature failure of a belt (whether service item or not, at 30k miles it's still premature failure on a belt lifed at 80k+) or - more likely from the symtoms - failure of a tensioner that wasn't changed (as it probably should have been - would need to see the manufacturer's service info to be sure) when the belt was.

Either of those faults point to poor workmanship or materials on the previous service, both of which would constitute a pre-existing fault. Regardless of who did the belt change, the dealer would thus be liable - just one of the perks of being in business that's been brought about by the need to legislate against sharp practices by sellers in the past. If they don't like it they should choose a different business that isn't covered by SOGA!

Tican

Tilt wrote: »

Unfortunately your opinion is flawed. It would depend a lot on how the car was advertised for a start which you have no way of knowing.

The SOGA is designed to protect consumers who have less (or no) knowledge of what they are buying than that of the trader selling the goods. It would be an easy enough argument for the OP to put forward that he/she had no idea what an auxiliary belt is let alone whether it should be replaced or not. It is reasonable to acknowledge that a consumer goes to a dealer/trader due to the fact they expect the dealer to be the expert and the consumer to be the novice.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPURs) specifically informs used car dealers what measures they should take to avoid falling foul of the regs taking into account of the above.

One such area is what pre-checks of the vehicle they are selling they should be making which includes any potential outstanding or upcoming service scheduled tasks to be performed, something the consumer is not going to know. I note that the OP was aware that the belt was last changed at 62k miles in 2013. The obvious question is how does he know this? I assume that the information was part of the advertising description which brings me to the advice I have given.

You are, however correct that the warranty company isn't liable. But I think you will find the seller could be. Why "could be?" Well on re-reading the OP's posts it appears that he has taken the car elsewhere other than the seller for attention. This of course will provide a defence for the seller as to he wasn't given the opportunity to mitigate his losses by having the opportunity to inspect and rectify the car in the first instance. That dosn't mean however, that the OP's case is completely dead in the water, it just means that any full claim may have been prejudiced.

But at the end of the day, ultimately it would be for a court to decide whether the seller is liable or not and a lot depends on the age of the car and the price paid which all reflects on the expectation of the 'satisfactory quality' it is under the SOGA.

I contacted the Dealers aftercare service, a guy who is based in the same building of the dealer, who booked the car in at the garage they use for all repairs. As I say, I would never use that garage, they are too expensive.
I know the belt was changed as I looked through the service book. Car was simply advertised as FSH.

I did forget to say, that they told me that the car would get a full service before I picked it up, however, within a week it needed to go back to them to get the glow plugs changed (at the garage it is at now), they covered the cost and told me that it looked like they hadn't been changed... Maybe I should have just rejected the car there?

Joe_Horner wrote: »

4 years old, £6.5k paid, and either premature failure of a belt (whether service item or not, at 30k miles it's still premature failure on a belt lifed at 80k+) or - more likely from the symtoms - failure of a tensioner that wasn't changed (as it probably should have been - would need to see the manufacturer's service info to be sure) when the belt was.

Either of those faults point to poor workmanship or materials on the previous service, both of which would constitute a pre-existing fault. Regardless of who did the belt change, the dealer would thus be liable - just one of the perks of being in business that's been brought about by the need to legislate against sharp practices by sellers in the past. If they don't like it they should choose a different business that isn't covered by SOGA!

Thanks - I will call Vauxhall and the garage who provided the service to confirm schedules and that it was changed

burlington6

Tican wrote: »

I contacted the Dealers aftercare service, a guy who is based in the same building of the dealer, who booked the car in at the garage they use for all repairs. As I say, I would never use that garage, they are too expensive.
I know the belt was changed as I looked through the service book. Car was simply advertised as FSH.

I did forget to say, that they told me that the car would get a full service before I picked it up, however, within a week it needed to go back to them to get the glow plugs changed (at the garage it is at now), they covered the cost and told me that it looked like they hadn't been changed... Maybe I should have just rejected the car there?

You couldn't even if you wanted to