Faulty used car - consumer rights?

childrenanddogs

Hi all,

At the end of July 2016 we bought a used car from a local dealer. 70k miles, 2006 Volvo car.

On the way home after buying it the car started smoking and flashing up error messages, we pulled over and phoned the dealer, they came and collected it and repaired it (turned out it was a faulty belt that had slipped), and we had it back two weeks later.

A few weeks ago (end of September so only 2 months after buying the car) the gearbox went bang in a big way, warning lights galore and limping along not changing gear (it's an automatic).

We phoned the dealer, they told us to get it to their garage at our cost (£70 for a tow truck) and that under their '3 month warranty' that they provided when we bought the car they would pay 50% of the repair costs - the terms of their warranty states that the buyer is liable for the other 50%.

We were due to pick the car up today after it had finally been repaired, with a complete gearbox rebuild at a cost of just over £3100. However, after a bit of Googling and speaking to Citizens Advice we discovered that under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 the dealer is liable for the full repair cost, contrary to what they've told us.

The dealer had already paid the garage for the full repair, but when we arrived and quoted the relevant bits of the Consumer Rights Act pointing out that we believed they were liable for the whole lot, they blocked the car in and refused to let us leave without paying them 50% of the garage bill.

Eventually, after a 3 hour stand off, we had no option but to pay the bill (one small child with us and another that we had to leave to collect from school) and now we've got to try and claim it back, presumably through the small claims court.

I just wanted to check with everybody that our understanding of the Act is correct before we go to the hassle of having to take it further. So to that end, are we correct -

- that we are not liable to pay the 50% of the repair that the dealer has charged us of the garage bill unless they can prove that the car didn't have the fault when we bought it?
- that the Consumer Goods Act supersedes the 3 month/50% warranty that the dealer gave us when we bought the car?
- that the dealer should have paid the tow bill for collecting the car?
- that the dealer has already paid the garage bill, and so to get us to pay 50% retrospectively when we have no contract with either the garage or the dealer to do so, isn't terribly ethical?

Any thoughts/advice would be very welcome, thanks all.

wealdroam

childrenanddogs wrote: »

Hi all,

At the end of July 2016 we bought a used car from a local dealer. 70k miles, 2006 Volvo car.

On the way home after buying it the car started smoking and flashing up error messages, we pulled over and phoned the dealer, they came and collected it and repaired it (turned out it was a faulty belt that had slipped), and we had it back two weeks later.

A few weeks ago (end of September so only 2 months after buying the car) the gearbox went bang in a big way, warning lights galore and limping along not changing gear (it's an automatic).

We phoned the dealer, they told us to get it to their garage at our cost (£70 for a tow truck) and that under their '3 month warranty' that they provided when we bought the car they would pay 50% of the repair costs - the terms of their warranty states that the buyer is liable for the other 50%.

We were due to pick the car up today after it had finally been repaired, with a complete gearbox rebuild at a cost of just over £3100. However, after a bit of Googling and speaking to Citizens Advice we discovered that under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 the dealer is liable for the full repair cost, contrary to what they've told us.

The dealer had already paid the garage for the full repair, but when we arrived and quoted the relevant bits of the Consumer Rights Act pointing out that we believed they were liable for the whole lot, they blocked the car in and refused to let us leave without paying them 50% of the garage bill.

Eventually, after a 3 hour stand off, we had no option but to pay the bill (one small child with us and another that we had to leave to collect from school) and now we've got to try and claim it back, presumably through the small claims court.

I just wanted to check with everybody that our understanding of the Act is correct before we go to the hassle of having to take it further. So to that end, are we correct -

- that we are not liable to pay the 50% of the repair that the dealer has charged us of the garage bill unless they can prove that the car didn't have the fault when we bought it?
- that the Consumer Goods Act supersedes the 3 month/50% warranty that the dealer gave us when we bought the car?
- that the dealer should have paid the tow bill for collecting the car?
- that the dealer has already paid the garage bill, and so to get us to pay 50% retrospectively when we have no contract with either the garage or the dealer to do so, isn't terribly ethical?

Any thoughts/advice would be very welcome, thanks all.

One thing that will go against you is that you agreed to pay half th repair bill before the repair was done, but when the time came to pay you changed your mind - for whatever reason. That to me sounds like a breach of contract.

Having said that, you are right that under the CRA the seller is responsible for the cost of repair and the cost of doing so - i.e. the towing cost.
However, you chose to use the warranty provided and are therefore bound to those terms agreed.

No warranty or temrs and conditions can remove your statutory rights, and it may be a criminal offence to imply that.

What a mess.

bobbymotors

Well the deal you had with the dealer was that you paid half each> And now you want to renege on that. So I'm unsurprised they blocked the car in, as they stuck to the deal by getting it repaired and you didn't by not paying.

I think you would have to show that the gearbox was faulty at the time of sale.

Which it obviously wasn't as you've been driving it for 3 months.

Whatever the law might say though, you agreed to pay half and should do so, as that was the deal.

wealdroam

bobbymotors wrote: »

I think you would have to show that the gearbox was faulty at the time of sale.

Which it obviously wasn't as you've been driving it for 3 months.

Most of what you have said is fine but I take issue with this point.

During the first six months following a sale any problem that arises can be assumed to have been present at the time of the sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.
After six months have passed, it would then be for the buyer to prove the fault existed at the time of the sale - i.e. it was an inherent fault.

Yes, the car had driven around for three months. How is that proof that the problem wasn't there at the time of the sale but not necessarily apparent at that time?

childrenanddogs

Thanks all, but just to clarify - we never actually agreed to pay half. They told us we'd have to, but we didn't agree to it. We have text messages between us where they tell us how much the repair will be, but nowhere does it say that we'll be paying any of it!

wealdroam

childrenanddogs wrote: »

Thanks all, but just to clarify - we never actually agreed to pay half. They told us we'd have to, but we didn't agree to it. We have text messages between us where they tell us how much the repair will be, but nowhere does it say that we'll be paying any of it!

When did they tell you you would have to pay half?

I ask because your original post seems to imply that you were advised that you would be required to pay 50% when you phoned them to report the problem:

childrenanddogs wrote: »

We phoned the dealer, they told us to get it to their garage at our cost (£70 for a tow truck) and that under their '3 month warranty' that they provided when we bought the car they would pay 50% of the repair costs - the terms of their warranty states that the buyer is liable for the other 50%.

I suggest that having heard that, and then getting the car to them to be repaired, you did agree to that term.

childrenanddogs

wealdroam wrote: »

Most of what you have said is fine but I take issue with this point.

During the first six months following a sale any problem that arises can be assumed to have been present at the time of the sale, and it is for the seller to prove otherwise.
After six months have passed, it would then be for the buyer to prove the fault existed at the time of the sale - i.e. it was an inherent fault.

That's our understanding too, that they have to prove the car didn't have the fault when we bought it.

I'm not mechanically minded, so have no idea if it's related or not, but the car came up with 'gearbox service required' soon after we had it back from the first repair. We alerted the dealer to this (via text message, so we have proof that they were aware of it ages ago, well before the gearbox failed completely). We asked them if this was a message that should have been reset when the car was serviced before we bought it, but they never responded.

childrenanddogs

wealdroam wrote: »

When did they tell you you would have to pay half?

In a phone call, before we knew what the problem was or that it would be over £3k to fix it. My husband didn't agree to it though, he said he didn't see how we should pay half and would look in to it, and it was left at that. Everything else was done by text message, and the warranty/50% wasn't mentioned again in those.

wealdroam

I've now added more to post #6.

unholyangel

Even if OP claimed "under warranty" and even if OP agreed to pay half the repairs:

2(h) Guarantees and warranties operating as exclusion clauses
5.11.1 A guarantee or warranty might be worded in such a way that, if successfully
relied on, it would leave consumers less well able to seek redress, in the
event of default by the trader, than they would be under Part 1 of the Act or
the general law. Using of wording of this kind will raise the same concerns
as exclusion or limitation clauses can do (see paragraphs 5.2.1 to 5.2.10).

5.11.2 There is no objection to guarantees or warranties that simply enlarge the
scope of the consumer’s ordinary legal rights – for example, by offering
refunds or exchanges on a no-fault basis, or offering repairs regardless of
the cause of the problem. But sometimes guarantees or warranties offer
more limited rights than are available under the law, either because the
benefits are less, or because their availability is made subject to special
conditions or restrictions. These are highly likely to be unfair and blacklisted
if they could have the effect of reducing the benefit provided to consumers
by their legal protections.

5.11.3 Certain fundamental legal rights are treated as included in all consumer
contracts by Part 1 of the Act. In general, these statutory rights cannot be
excluded by any form of contractual wording or notice – see above, in part
4 of the guidance on blacklisted terms. But inappropriately restrictive
guarantees may still be challenged as unfair, particularly if they could
deprive consumers of other legal protections. Such wording is also likely to
mislead consumers into assuming that it represents the full extent of their
rights, and cause them to refrain from exercising their statutory rights,
which may be actionable as a breach of the CPRs.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

How did you pay for the car originally?

childrenanddogs

Thanks so much unholyangel, that's excellent info.

We paid cash for the car originally unfortunately - decided against a credit card due to the extra fees.