Dealership warranty vs consumer rights act

mlaf

I'm researching what to expect when I purchase from a dealer and was glad to read of the consumer rights act 2015 allowing for a rejection within 30days, or after 6mo a rejection after 1 failed repair from the dealer.

However I read this on lawgistics:
This is your customers’ legal rights, not their warranty. In addition to having their legal rights a customer may be offered a warranty by the car dealer on a voluntary basis.

Interestingly, if the first repair is conducted under the terms of a warranty, that will be a contractual repair, and so the customer does not become entitled to their final right to reject. At this stage a dealer can agree a further repair which will effectively defer the customer's rights under the Act meaning they still have the rights if they have further problems which can not be repaired under the terms of a warranty.

So, strangely, it sounds as if taking out a warranty would protect the dealer in a way, allowing them more chances at a repair before you are entitled to ask for a refund...?

Any thougths on this?

Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?

System

mlaf wrote: »

Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?

Depends entirely on your appetite for risk. Personally I wouldn't bother. In 150,000 miles of motoring over a decade spread between two cars the sum total cost of non servicing repairs I've had comes to £700 or so;

MK3 Mondeo, bought at 3 years old with 90k on, sold 4.5 years later at 165k:
Rear Subframe Bushes (common fault) - £200
Turbo intercooler pipe (common fault) £80
Alternator £120.
Rear exhaust section £60

MK4 Mondeo, bought at 2 years old with 38k, now 5.5 years later on 123k
N/S and O/S trailing arm bushes - £140.
Weld new hanger bracket on rear tailpipe - £30.

motorguy

mlaf wrote: »

I'm researching what to expect when I purchase from a dealer and was glad to read of the consumer rights act 2015 allowing for a rejection within 30days, or after 6mo a rejection after 1 failed repair from the dealer.

However I read this on lawgistics:
This is your customers’ legal rights, not their warranty. In addition to having their legal rights a customer may be offered a warranty by the car dealer on a voluntary basis.

Interestingly, if the first repair is conducted under the terms of a warranty, that will be a contractual repair, and so the customer does not become entitled to their final right to reject. At this stage a dealer can agree a further repair which will effectively defer the customer's rights under the Act meaning they still have the rights if they have further problems which can not be repaired under the terms of a warranty.

So, strangely, it sounds as if taking out a warranty would protect the dealer in a way, allowing them more chances at a repair before you are entitled to ask for a refund...?

Any thougths on this?

Is it still worth taking out the dealer's warranty to cover smaller issues that wouldn't render the car unsatisfactory and therefore wouldn't be covered under the consumer rights act?

Its not the taking out of the warranty, its the accepting of a repair under warranty.

Also, the CRA 2015 doesnt just cover rejection, it covers your rights relating to repair.

missile

A warranty does not reduce your rights

david_a

The CRA 2015 relates to issues present at the time of sale. A warranty is for issues arising after the sale.

unholyangel

david_a wrote: »

The CRA 2015 relates to issues present at the time of sale. A warranty is for issues arising after the sale.

That depends what you mean by issue. For example. poor soldering or substandard components will obviously be present at time of sale but the issue itself may not arise until several years later.

Typically, a guarantee/warranty only offers value if it gives rights beyond your statutory ones. A guarantee cannot be used to restrict or remove your statutory rights - its potential to mislead consumers is particularly high during the first 6 month when any lack of conformity is assumed to be inherent.


Under the heading "Guarantees and warranties operating as exclusion clauses" in CMA's unfair term guidance:

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

5.11.6 Any guarantee or warranty which gives consumers less protection than
their ordinary rights is unlikely to be made fair merely by addition of a
qualifying statement of any kind. In the CMA’s view, such a guarantee
should be discontinued altogether, or its terms should be brought into line
with the consumer’s legal rights

Where it references qualifying statement, it means a statement such as "your statutory rights are unaffected" or similar.