Advice dealing with a car dealership

Jamiekrux

Cheers Carol!



Before I leave the bruised ego's to recover i'd like to point out a section of MSE's own used car buying guide,


If you bought from a dealer


If you bought the car from a dealer you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act - see our Consumer Rights guide for more info.
The car must be of “satisfactory quality”, “as described”, “fit for purpose”, and last a reasonable length of time. The dealer has broken their contract with you if the car doesn’t meet these criteria.


I'd also like to point out that nowhere in this guide is there a specific mention to cam belts. Peace out.

Mercdriver

Jamiekrux wrote: »

Cheers Carol!



Before I leave the bruised ego's to recover i'd like to point out a section of MSE's own used car buying guide,


If you bought from a dealer


If you bought the car from a dealer you have rights under the Consumer Rights Act - see our Consumer Rights guide for more info.
The car must be of “satisfactory quality”, “as described”, “fit for purpose”, and last a reasonable length of time. The dealer has broken their contract with you if the car doesn’t meet these criteria.


I'd also like to point out that nowhere in this guide is there a specific mention to cam belts. Peace out.

You will learn that MSE guides can often contain inaccuracies and are not exhaustive and should not be relied on biblically.

shaun_from_Africa

Jamiekrux wrote: »

The car must be of “satisfactory quality”, “as described”, “fit for purpose”, and last a reasonable length of time. The dealer has broken their contract with you if the car doesn’t meet these criteria.

I'd also like to point out that nowhere in this guide is there a specific mention to cam belts. Peace out.

Correct, it's a guide and as it's only a brief synopsis of the actual law (The Consumer rights act), it doesn't come close to giving a full requirement of what the CRA states.

What the guide doesn't state is that according to the law, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would expect but more importantly, the term "satisfactory quality" can take into account the price paid for the goods and any other relevant circumstances.

What would most reasonable people count as relevant?
Well, I for one would say that the age is certainly relevant.
You bought a car that was almost 10 years old with 120k miles on it and with a consumable item that was nearing the end of its expected life and which was working as expected when it was sold to you.
IMO, this is no different to buying a car that has the tyres worn down to 1.8mm, When sold, those tyres were legal but would need replacing fairly soon, something that would have been your responsibility and I don't see why the cam belt should be any different.

Mercdriver

The Consumer Rights Act is not a license for consumers not to do their homework. OP, you are lucky the dealer is playing ball. The manufacturer's recommended schedule for changing the cam belt is a gambit. It is not precise. Belts can be difficult to predict, especially if the car is poorly serviced and generally unloved. Within 5k miles of recommended change and without service history, I would have made changing the cam belt and water pump etc a condition of the purchase.

You might not have been so fortunate had the engine gone pop with the pistons flying around. The dealer may have taken his chances in refusing the claim then.

Brummie85

Mercdriver wrote: »

You might not have been so fortunate had the engine gone pop with the pistons flying around. The dealer may have taken his chances in refusing the claim then.

You are spot on. The OP is misguided in their view of their own responsibilities as a buyer and seems to expect the vehicle to be at risk of zero faults - when in truth even brand new cars are routinely delivered with problems. No car dealer will ever be able to deliver every car without a failure soon afterwards.

The risks of buying a dud are much higher when buying a 2nd hand vehicle, even one that is almost new and comes with the balance of the manufacturers warranty or service schedule. A car that is 10 years old with no maintenance history to show it's been cared for is a huge risk and I wouldn't part with £3k for one. It sounds like keeping the Subaru and the money would have been a more sensible option.

I've been stung on used cars before so learnt the hard way. The dealer is being more then decent in sorting this for the OP, although the time taken is fairly poor.