Faulty used car - consumer rights?

childrenanddogs

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

The car was not new but 10years old with £70k on the clock - good luck with any claim post 4 or not - it is just not true in this case.
As the car's gearbox worked well for 10 years I think we can presume there was no fault at date of manufacture.
s75 does not cover for wear and tear.
If the car was new I would agree with all of you.

I think you might be misunderstanding the CR Act, it's nothing to do with the fault having been there since manufacture.

Under the act, if a fault is found within 6 months of the purchase date, the dealer is required to prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of sale (regardless of if that was at the time of manufacture, 2 years after, or 10 years after), and if they can't do that, to repair it fully at their cost.

naedanger

childrenanddogs wrote: »

I think you might be misunderstanding the CR Act, it's nothing to do with the fault having been there since manufacture.

Under the act, if a fault is found within 6 months of the purchase date, the dealer is required to prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of sale (regardless of if that was at the time of manufacture, 2 years after, or 10 years after), and if they can't do that, to repair it fully at their cost.

But I wonder what constitutes "faulty" in respect of second hand, heavily used goods. I don't think the legal position is that a second hand car is necessarily faulty just because it had significant wear on one (or more) of its substantial components when it was sold.

For example, I suspect, a cheap, old, second hand car may only need to have been in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale. So if such a car broke down after a few weeks then I suspect, the seller's mechanic's pre-sale report might perhaps be sufficient in some cases to prove the car was not "faulty" at sale, in the absence of any other contrary evidence.

I am not suggesting your car was in that category, just saying I don't think the onus is on the garage proving the car was completely fault free at the point of sale, but rather to prove (on the balance of probability) it was in a condition consistent with the way the car was described at the point of sale, taking account of all relevant factors, including price, age, mileage etc.

I also think you have other things going for your case, e.g. the error message and the garage's poor (in my view) behaviour.

childrenanddogs

naedanger wrote: »

But I wonder what constitutes "faulty" in respect of second hand, heavily used goods. I don't think the legal position is that a second hand car is necessarily faulty just because it had significant wear on one (or more) of its substantial components when it was sold.

For example, I suspect, a cheap, old, second hand car may only need to have been in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale. So if such a car broke down after a few weeks then I suspect, the seller's mechanic's pre-sale report might perhaps be sufficient in some cases to prove the car was not "faulty" at sale, in the absence of any other contrary evidence.

True. We didn't get any kind of mechanic's pre-sale report though, but I'm sure if we had then we wouldn't have any case at all.

naedanger wrote: »

I am not suggesting your car was in that category, just saying I don't think the onus is on the garage proving the car was completely fault free at the point of sale

Except that according to the CRA, the onus *is* on the dealer to prove exactly that. And if they can't, to repair any fault in full (not make the consumer pay 50% of the repair bill!).

naedanger wrote: »

I also think you have other things going for your case, e.g. the error message and the garage's poor (in my view) behaviour.

Thank you.

naedanger

childrenanddogs wrote: »

Except that according to the CRA, the onus *is* on the dealer to prove exactly that [that the car was fault free]. And if they can't, to repair any fault in full (not make the consumer pay 50% of the repair bill!).

It comes back to what is meant be "fault free". My contention is that in some cases the seller will only need to prove the car was in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale. But I agree the onus will still be on the seller to prove, on the balance of probability, that the car was indeed in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale.

unholyangel

naedanger wrote: »

It comes back to what is meant be "fault free". My contention is that in some cases the seller will only need to prove the car was in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale. But I agree the onus will still be on the seller to prove, on the balance of probability, that the car was indeed in a roadworthy condition at the point of sale.

Except that the car being roadworthy is not the only term/requirement of the contract - just one of them. A car can be roadworthy but still inherently fail to conform to contract.

Its for the consumer to prove there is a lack of conformity but its for the trader to prove the lack of conformity isnt inherent.

naedanger

unholyangel wrote: »

Except that the car being roadworthy is not the only term/requirement of the contract - just one of them. A car can be roadworthy but still inherently fail to conform to contract.

Its for the consumer to prove there is a lack of conformity but its for the trader to prove the lack of conformity isnt inherent.

I agree.

All I am saying is that a cheap, old, high mileage car might not last long (including much less than 6 months) without needing further maintenance whilst still having conformed to the contract. But it would depend on the circumstances including how it was described when it was sold, price paid etc.

debbieme

Hi Sorry to hear about your trouble but my husband is a mechanic and says that it does not take 2 weeks to replace or fix a slipped belt in your first trouble with a car more like 2 hours at most if it was the air con belt etc also the dealer probably paid nothing towards the cost, they usually have an insurance on every car covering engine and gear box. Sound like a shifty dealer to my hubby and under the customer act I would go to a small claims court only costs around £20, it will probably end in your favor. Good LUCK