Used car help - Faulty car after 1 month, dealer not accepting fault

motorguy

Smellyonion wrote: »

Is the ownership not on them to prove it wasn't faulty within a 6 month period?

How on earth can the dealership prove such a thing?

Because it wasnt doing it when your g/f bought it and only started doing it subsequently.

If it were a fault with the headlights that suddenly stopped working after a month the seller would say the fault wasnt present at the time of sale because your gf had driven the car for a month with the lights working.

motorguy

Smellyonion wrote: »

That could be said about anything, then everyone would be being flogged covered up faulty cars. Its very easy to apply temporary fixes to some issues like head gaskets.
Quiet frankly, you wouldnt know the faults of a vehicle unless it is being used for x amount of time for the fault to become apparent.
If the fault was present , the car wouldn't have been purchased.

The fact the dealer knows little about electrical problems and would be unable to diagnose it (hence not being willing to take it back) is semi testament to the fact that they would be unable to know if it had not had such issues at the point of sale.

My next point of call is to contact mecedes and see if it had any work done in relation to this. Because it had ample of non service, warranty work but unsure of details.

And have you not just proven my point there? The fault wasnt present at the time of sale, otherwise she wouldnt have bought it? And she drove it for a full month with no fault becoming apparent, therefore it wasnt present at the time of sale?

Cars develop faults over time. It could be water from the rain last week got in to an electrical contact, it could be shes went over a bump and dislodged a wire by a fraction of a millimetre, it could be any number of things caused it.

System

mobileron wrote: »

surely it should go to a Car Audio specialist for repair.

No because all they know is how to fit stuff, they don't know how to repair to component level. Therefore their fix would be to check the wiring and replace the stereo if that didn't fix it, no different to what the dealer would do, not to strip the stereo down and do board level diagnosis and repair.

Hermione_Granger

motorguy wrote: »

And have you not just proven my point there? The fault wasnt present at the time of sale, otherwise she wouldnt have bought it? And she drove it for a full month with no fault becoming apparent, therefore it wasnt present at the time of sale?

Just because the fault itself wasn't there at the time of purchase doesn't mean that the cause of the fault wasn't there at that time and this is what the law assumes to be the case unless the dealer can prove otherwise.

It's no different to buying a washing machine that works perfectly well for 5 weeks then seizes up due to a faulty bearing. The bearing failing may have been caused by incorrect fitting, not enough grease or any similar inherent fault and if a consumer returns the machine because of the problem, it's assumed that the defect (or the cause of it) was there when sold unless it is proven not to be the case.

motorguy

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Just because the fault itself wasn't there at the time of purchase doesn't mean that the cause of the fault wasn't there at that time and this is what the law assumes to be the case unless the dealer can prove otherwise.

It's no different to buying a washing machine that works perfectly well for 5 weeks then seizes up due to a faulty bearing. The bearing failing may have been caused by incorrect fitting, not enough grease or any similar inherent fault and if a consumer returns the machine because of the problem, it's assumed that the defect (or the cause of it) was there when sold unless it is proven not to be the case.

With the washing machine, if new, it would be covered by the ccomprehensive warranty and also the fact its not unreasonable to expect new goods to last longer than 5 weeks.

What about if its a 4 year old washing machine, bought for a fraction of its price new?

Is it unreasonable for that bearing to wear out in 4+ years? Probably not.

The fact that it worked fine for the reseller and happily washed clothes for five weeks would again suggest the fault was not present at the time of sale

A reputable washing machine reseller would cover it, as would a reputable car trader in this instance, however in the most literal interpretation of the law the seller could / will / is saying the fault wasnt present at the time of sale and its hard to argue against that as it wasnt.

DoaM

The law accounts for such scenarios. For 1, after 6 months from purchase the burden falls to the buyer to prove that any fault was inherent (if the seller so-requires). For 2, the law also takes into account price paid as a factor of "reasonableness" ... a £1000 washing machine would be expected to last far longer than a £200 one.

Similarly if this was a 2nd hand purchase then the age of the goods are also taken into account - the law factors the price paid and the condition of the goods at the time of sale. A bearing failing on a 4-y-o machine would likely class as "wear and tear" - but it would still be for the seller to assert this if this happened within 6 months of purchase. In such a case the buyer could still commission a report to refute this - whether that would be worthwhile is a separate matter.

Smellyonion

motorguy wrote: »

And have you not just proven my point there? The fault wasnt present at the time of sale, otherwise she wouldnt have bought it? And she drove it for a full month with no fault becoming apparent, therefore it wasnt present at the time of sale?

Cars develop faults over time. It could be water from the rain last week got in to an electrical contact, it could be shes went over a bump and dislodged a wire by a fraction of a millimetre, it could be any number of things caused it.

I am not sure how you got A=B from my statement. As the previous poster suggested, the fault may not have been there, yet the causes for the fault could be well established (which is a fault in itself but not yet sufficient to cause the event).


It is highly unlikely for such a fault to develop from nothing within the space on a month hence the reason for the 6 month law. You are right, it could be anything that we inflicted but that is down to the dealer to prove that and they are very unlikely to prove otherwise considering they are not electrical engineers.


On that note, the dealer did not know the fault was not there, they did not drive it sufficiently, they did not disassemble the car to microchip level and inspect every component so what would their defence be? The burden is rightfully on them.


We will take it them on Saturday.

shaun_from_Africa

motorguy wrote: »

A reputable washing machine reseller would cover it, as would a reputable car trader in this instance, however in the most literal interpretation of the law the seller could / will / is saying the fault wasnt present at the time of sale and its hard to argue against that as it wasnt.

Where did you find your "most literal interpretation"?
Luckily the relevant legislation has a different, more consumer orientated interpretation.

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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes
Notice the important part, "Prove", not "say".

motorguy

Smellyonion wrote: »

It is highly unlikely for such a fault to develop from nothing within the space on a month hence the reason for the 6 month law. You are right, it could be anything that we inflicted but that is down to the dealer to prove that and they are very unlikely to prove otherwise considering they are not electrical engineers.

A fault could have been present at the time of sale and not manifest itself for some time, correct, however given the car is 4 plus years old, it has not manifested itself in that time, nor did the seller pick it up in any checks they did on the car, nor did it occur on the test drive, nor did it occur during the handover, nor did it occur in the 5 weeks subsequent thus it could be assumed to be not present at the time of sale.

Also, its not up to the seller to prove your girlfriend caused it, merely that it wasnt there at the time of sale.

Smellyonion wrote: »

On that note, the dealer did not know the fault was not there, they did not drive it sufficiently, they did not disassemble the car to microchip level and inspect every component so what would their defence be? The burden is rightfully on them.


We will take it them on Saturday.

I would say the seller probably had the car for several weeks, probably drove it to MOT, moved it about, etc.

When i was motor trading - and if the dealer has any sense he'll be doing this - i had a checklist that i went through to check each car and either corrected any faults detected or signed off that the car was checked. If the dealer has something like that, it could be construed as evidence that he checked the car at the time and that fault was not present.

Heres a thought - lets turn it around - lets say your girlfriend sold the car and five weeks later the buyer came on the phone saying it had done this and she must have known about it and it must have been present at the time of sale, therefore she should take the car back or fix it. How would you respond to that?

motorguy

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Where did you find your "most literal interpretation"?
Luckily the relevant legislation has a different, more consumer orientated interpretation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes
Notice the important part, "Prove", not "say".

You've just quoted the most literal interpretation - the seller must prove it wasnt there at the time of sale.

• The car hadnt done it for 4 years
• It didnt do it when he had it
• It most likely went through an MOT and didnt do it
• It passed any inspection checks they did on it
• It was on a test drive and didnt do it
• It was driven 5 weeks subsequently and didnt do it

Now, lets say the seller says all that - which is my point - whats the O/P going to do about it?

The law means diddly as there is no enforcement of it. Its down to intrepretation.

The O/P is then in to the realms of going to court. Might take 6 months. The seller "presents" all of the above and its by no means a foregone conclusion that the buyer wins. Even IF they do win - win what? The cost of repair? They then have to chase the seller for that. Maybe take them to court or appoint bailiffs.

If the seller is digging his heels in - theres not a whole pile the O/P can do about it.

Now, they may go on Saturday and the seller has a look and fixes it and great, but what if he doesnt? Quoting the CRA is going to change diddly squat.