Used car on fire after one day!

Hintza

neilmcl wrote: »

Even if they can pursue a no-fault claim the likelihood is that premiums will rise.

Most doubtful esp since it will come under sale of goods

neilmcl

Hintza wrote: »

Most doubtful esp since it will come under sale of goods

Are you having an off day here or something.

A, sale of goods doesn't apply (CRA does), and B, it's obvious that if the OP goes after the seller directly via their consumer rights his insurance wont be affected, it was you who brought up the notion of handing it over to the insurer which will mean, with out a doubt their premiums will rise if the OP puts a claim in, regardless of fault.

pinkshoes

I think that the OP needs to arrange for the car to be delivered back to the dealer.

Not sure how the dealer could claim it wasn't faulty...

So er... I guess a repair is not a soloution, so that leaves a refund.

The car does need to go back to the dealer though.

Keep_pedalling

pinkshoes wrote: »

I think that the OP needs to arrange for the car to be delivered back to the dealer.

Not sure how the dealer could claim it wasn't faulty...

So er... I guess a repair is not a soloution, so that leaves a refund.

The car does need to go back to the dealer though.

The OP would have to pay someone to do this, and the dealer may simply refuse to let the wreck be off loaded on their forecourt, which would lead to yet more costs.

Personally I would let the insurance company deal with it, then go after the dealership for the extras like excess and increased premiums. A lot less stressful and should get them back on the road faster.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

pinkshoes wrote: »

I think that the OP needs to arrange for the car to be delivered back to the dealer.

Not sure how the dealer could claim it wasn't faulty...

So er... I guess a repair is not a soloution, so that leaves a refund.

The car does need to go back to the dealer though.

Things happen. It's a used car. If some part catastrophically failed five minutes after he drove it off the forecourt, it wasn't faulty when he bought it and it's his problem.

Perhaps he opened it up to have a look at the engine and left something inflammable in there that caught fire in the heat.

Without some indication of the cause of fire he he can't just claim"it was faulty when you sold it".

fleshandbone

Car Dealer is correct. You need to prove to them the fault was not caused by something you did.

Ectophile

fleshandbone wrote: »

Car Dealer is correct. You need to prove to them the fault was not caused by something you did.

No, you don't. If it's less than 6 months since purchase, then they have to prove to you that you broke it.

wealdroam

Ectophile wrote: »

No, you don't. If it's less than 6 months since purchase, then they have to prove to you that you broke it.

This crops up from time to time.

You are mistaken.

As I said in post #5 when exercising the short time right to reject, the buyer must show that the goods do not conform to contract.

Note 97 in The Consumer Rights Act Explanatory Notes explains this:

97. Subsections (14) and (15) provide that, if a breach of the statutory rights – for example a fault - arises in the first 6 months from delivery, it is presumed to have been present at the time of delivery unless the trader proves otherwise or this presumption is incompatible with the nature of the goods or the particular breach or fault. This applies where the consumer exercises their right to a repair or replacement or their right to a price reduction or the final right to reject. This does not apply where the consumer exercises the short-term right to reject. These subsections correspond to section 48A(3) and (4) of the SGA and section 11M(3) and (4) of the SGSA.

My bolding.

DoaM

What about root cause fault and consequential loss?

What I mean is ... let's say it was the fuel pump that failed, fuel leaked, was ignited by a hot engine and that caused the fire. Is the dealer liable only for repairing or replacing the faulty fuel pump, but not for any damage caused by the fire (a consequential event/loss leading from the fault)?

naedanger

wealdroam wrote: »

This crops up from time to time.

You are mistaken.

As I said in post #5 when exercising the short time right to reject, the buyer must show that the goods do not conform to contract.

Note 97 in The Consumer Rights Act Explanatory Notes explains this:

My bolding.

But the op could ask the seller to repair, replace or refund (at the seller's choice) in which case the seller does have to prove the car was not inherently faulty in order to avoid providing a remedy. I doubt the seller will choose to repair the car so they either need to refund or replace with a similar model or prove the fault did not exist when the car was delivered.