Not Impressed With Evans Halshaw

arcon5

So the law covers wear & tear as well as faults? Well that's new. Since the law revolves very much around what is 'reasonable'.

So selling "used" goods with what I suspect is significant mileague and having been run for god knows how many years certainly does not mean the dealer is responsible for every aspect of it.

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.

Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality; but if the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed.

On your thinking, faulty ABS shouldn't be a dealer's responsibility either because any competent driver will never trigger it anyway and, even if they did, the seatbelts and airbags should save them so what's the problem

Brilliant! So a glovebox not closing not only distorts the way airbags are deployed, it's also comparable to a faulty ABS system.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

SOGA also covers incipient faults in the same way as fully evident ones - in fact that's what the timescale is there for - fully developed faults (like the glovebox hanging open during the test drive) could reasonably be expected to be seen at sale or shortly after.

"It was working but so worn it was just about to fail" is an incipient fault, and they'd have to show that it wasn't in that state when sold.

I agree that it wouldn't get to court for a £30 part (or even an £80 new one), but that's only because the buyer is unlikely to take it that far. EH would be in a weak position if it did, and it'd rapidly get more expensive than the repair for them. In fact, even if they successfully defended it, the cost is likely to be more than the repair.

So a buyer who convinces them that he's the rare git who'll go that way on principle, and regardless of inconvenience, is in a very strong position even if it's a bluff.

The latch of the glove box was working at the time of sale, and at some point afterwards stopped working.

Whos to say it wasnt kicked by a child the following date and it broke? You dont know, i dont know, and the O/P couldnt say for definite either. Is that the dealers fault?

You are arguing about the finer semantics of what "might" happen in court, but as we both agree, its not going to get to court.

With the likes of EH who no doubt have a team of solicitors for stuff like this, you'll waste more time, effort and stress than will otherwise fix it.

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You really don't get it, do you? The law sets standards for car interior design that prevent sharp / hard / protruding edges and features that may interfere with other safety equipment like airbags. That's not my decision, it's the law.

If the model had been submitted for type approval with a loosely flapping glove box lid then it wouldn't have passed, any more than if it had been submitted with no seatbelts, braking on 2 wheels only, or that damn spike on the steering wheel. Those are the standards set, and those are (broadly) the standards the consumer can expect when buying.

On your thinking, faulty ABS shouldn't be a dealer's responsibility either because any competent driver will never trigger it anyway and, even if they did, the seatbelts and airbags should save them so what's the problem :huh:

In case you hadn't noticed, I also suggested that the practical solution would be to get a new (or used) lid and fit it. But that is a matter of choice for the Op, not something he should feel is his only option.

Seriously - its a glove box thats popped open on a fault latch.

Keep it in perspective - its not a threat to human life nor is it a basis for rejecting the car, as someone suggested.

I sold a cheapie trade in (£600) in many years ago to a single mum. Car was decent enough, Clio 1.2 petrol. I'd had my mechanic give it the once over and i'd driven it about for a couple of days for a runner. SIX WEEKS after she bought it, the woman was on shouting down the phone about how her baby daughter COULD HAVE DIED in this car i sold her. Turns out it had subsequently started leaking a bit of water from the radiator. Her reasoning was that as it was the middle of winter, had the car broken down because of this, and it had happened at night, her daughter could have frozen to death in the car! I KID YOU NOT.

So, back in reality - worn out latch on glovebox, £30 DIY fix. End of.

Geez, i feel like buying it myself for the O/P just so this thread can end.....

motorguy

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Err, yes it is if it's worn and torn virtually to the point of failure at the time of sale and fails within a short time after (in this case "a few days").

Otherwise nothing that was minimally working at the time you bought it would ever be covered because it would have just "worn out" since. That attitude from sellers is exactly what SOGA was intended to combat in the first place.

Its a latch that wore out. The onus is on the dealer is only to prove it was working at the time of sale - if he cant do that then he needs to repair, replace or refund at his discretion. Clearly it was working at the time of sale, therefore no SOGA issue for the dealer.

colino

If you really want to take this further, look at the checklist they have done on the car. Trading Standards are pretty pathetic, but checklists are in their guidance notes so they like them and if you can see if one or more items have simply been ticked instead of checked, you will have a case.
Incidentally, EH don't have a great reputation, the garbage about making their cars look £99 cheaper than the guy down the road, the conditioning of buyers by having a "runabout " section (you can't expect much from that, it is a runabout after all) all paint easily researched signs of old fashioned Arthur Daleys. Then, to spend so much on a middling car, it really highlights how they successfully target and get their customers.

tony6403

colino wrote: »

If you really want to take this further, look at the checklist they have done on the car. Trading Standards are pretty pathetic, but checklists are in their guidance notes so they like them and if you can see if one or more items have simply been ticked instead of checked, you will have a case.
Incidentally, EH don't have a great reputation, the garbage about making their cars look £99 cheaper than the guy down the road, the conditioning of buyers by having a "runabout " section (you can't expect much from that, it is a runabout after all) all paint easily researched signs of old fashioned Arthur Daleys. Then, to spend so much on a middling car, it really highlights how they successfully target and get their customers.

That's a good point.
The checklist shows an under bonnet inspection. It must have been a testing job as the bonnet would not open. Anyway they fixed that.
Motorguy is wrong in all his speculation about the glove box. It was opened for the first time on the day following collection of the car. No passengers had been in the car. It would not close after that first pull on the lever.
Having handed over £3400 to EH I do not take kindly to the prospect of finding and paying for a used spare part , travelling 45 miles to my daughter's house and then fitting it.

Herzlos

Any indy garage local to her will source and fit the part.

If EH say they won't replace it, it'll cost you far more than it's worth to force them to, so you can always send them small claims court paperwork with the invoice from the indy to get the work done and see if they bite.

GwylimT

tony6403 wrote: »

That's a good point.
The checklist shows an under bonnet inspection. It must have been a testing job as the bonnet would not open. Anyway they fixed that.
Motorguy is wrong in all his speculation about the glove box. It was opened for the first time on the day following collection of the car. No passengers had been in the car. It would not close after that first pull on the lever.
Having handed over £3400 to EH I do not take kindly to the prospect of finding and paying for a used spare part , travelling 45 miles to my daughter's house and then fitting it.

Why doesn't she just do it herself, she isn't actually a child you know.

photome

tony6403 wrote: »

That's a good point.
The checklist shows an under bonnet inspection. It must have been a testing job as the bonnet would not open. Anyway they fixed that.
Motorguy is wrong in all his speculation about the glove box. It was opened for the first time on the day following collection of the car. No passengers had been in the car. It would not close after that first pull on the lever.
Having handed over £3400 to EH I do not take kindly to the prospect of finding and paying for a used spare part , travelling 45 miles to my daughter's house and then fitting it.

That means it was working when you bought it as it was closed.
I am not standing up for the dealer as they really should sort it but it will be easier to get a second hand one in the long run, in the mean time gaffer tape would work short term

Joe_Horner

motorguy wrote: »

Its a latch that wore out. The onus is on the dealer is only to prove it was working at the time of sale - if he cant do that then he needs to repair, replace or refund at his discretion. Clearly it was working at the time of sale, therefore no SOGA issue for the dealer.

No, the onus is for the seller to demonstrate that it "conformed to the contract" at the time of sale - SOGA S.48A(4)(a)

That's slightly different to showing that it worked, because conforming to the contract includes the implied terms about quality or fitness provided by SOGA S.14, which includes a requirement of reasonable durability. Working at the time of sale but failed within 24 - 48 hours doesn't amount to "reasonable durability" unless the seller can show that it was damaged by the buyer. That's true even for some Chinese plastic junk from a pound store, let alone for part of a £3000+ car.