Cambelt snapped within 7 days from purchase

kozlikha

ratrace wrote: »

Adrian does have a point when you broke down you should have had the car towed to the garage where you bought it from as the car was still only a week old (since you bought it) or if you didnt do that the very least i would have done is call them to make them aware of the problem as soon as its happend

Shame the garage has closed down that did the belt, but as its said above you need to call them and discuss what happens now as by law they have a right (one chance) to fix the problem for you, but im not sure how far from home they are located and getting the car recoverd there could be expensive

as you have stated (dates/miles) the belt falls with in normal intervals and has failed prematurely so going by that you are the innocent party

@ that miles it is a bit of a risk buying a car as most of the parts would be original unless stated otherwise such as injectors. turbo,flywheel etc.... separate issue if they were to fail

The reason it wasn't taken to the dealer is simple, my wife was driving it around 9pm with 2 small children, she was on a dual carriageway and whilst overtaking car lost power and she just managed to get it to the nearside lane as there was no hard shoulder. I then had to call the Police as car was in a dangerous position and needless to say my family was left stranded in place where there were no lights. So they had to be taken home and not to a garage which was 70+ miles away. It's a valid reason.

JustAnotherSaver

Be careful about this stance that some MSE members have where they suggest you take the car back ASAP.


My brother claimed against a garage. I'll not go in to the details as they're a little irrelevant to the point. Some MSE members said he should've taken the car back to the garage & dropped it off.
2 points on this - 1) They flat out had refused a refund anyway 2) citizens advice i think it were, were advising against just dropping it off for the common sense reason of the garage would then have A) your money and also the car so you would be totally without anything - not good.



Like with any advice, weigh up what you feel comfortable with. My brother & i'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense would not feel comfortable having no car & no cash.

ratrace

kozlikha wrote: »

The reason it wasn't taken to the dealer is simple, my wife was driving it around 9pm with 2 small children, she was on a dual carriageway and whilst overtaking car lost power and she just managed to get it to the nearside lane as there was no hard shoulder. I then had to call the Police as car was in a dangerous position and needless to say my family was left stranded in place where there were no lights. So they had to be taken home and not to a garage which was 70+ miles away. It's a valid reason.

Thats understandable if it was at 9pm, give them a call and take it from there, hopefully you get it sorted

EdGasketTheSecond

kozlikha wrote: »

cambelt and waterpump changed (handwritten in service book) at 99k

Fell for that old one then :eek:

kozlikha

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Fell for that old one then :eek:

Maybe. Point is it was advertised specifically stating that cambelt was done not too long ago, implying doesn't need to be changed ASAP. If it wasn't implied, then why didn't they change it? Where was responsibility of the car dealer? I don't see how they can spin this in their favour.

debtdebt

kozlikha wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the car already had a fault when I bought it, paid £3500+ for it. Which state that I'm entitled to money back, but was wondering if anyone had to go small claims with car dealer based on similar problems (car breaking down within 30 days).

The car did not have a fault when you bought it. The car did not have a fault the day after you bought it. The car did not have a fault the day after that either. The cam belt failing wasn't a fault. It was a failure under your ownership.

On the face of it, the car had a cam belt change previously. Do you accept that?

The car didn't need a cam belt change yet.

The cam belt nevertheless went before it was due to be changed. Is it the dealer's fault? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how you'd persuade a judge to see your point of view either. What has the dealer done wrong?

kozlikha

debtdebt wrote: »

The car did not have a fault when you bought it. The car did not have a fault the day after you bought it. The car did not have a fault the day after that either. The cam belt failing wasn't a fault. It was a failure under your ownership.

On the face of it, the car had a cam belt change previously. Do you accept that?

The car didn't need a cam belt change yet.

The cam belt nevertheless went before it was due to be changed. Is it the dealer's fault? I'm not sure. I'm not sure how you'd persuade a judge to see your point of view either. What has the dealer done wrong?

What has the dealer done wrong? I don't really care what they did wrong. Point is I'm now out of pocket and hopefully consumer act of 2015 will provide enough backup to make my argument valid. Otherwise why buy cars from dealers? We run a business and we must adhere to consumer act when products are sold and we must issue refunds if goods are faulty. Consumer act of 2015 states that within 30 days faulty goods must be refunded, so how is a car different to an antique chair that collapses?

debtdebt

You really should care about what the dealer did wrong because if they haven't done anything wrong, your claim isn't going to be successful is it?

Under the Consumer RIGHTS Act 2015, the dealer can easily prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of the sale because simply, a car won't run without a functioning cam belt will it? That is enough to defeat your claim. They have no liability even within 30 days if they can prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of sale.

kozlikha

debtdebt wrote: »

You really should care about what the dealer did wrong because if they haven't done anything wrong, your claim isn't going to be successful is it?

Under the Consumer RIGHTS Act 2015, the dealer can easily prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of the sale because simply, a car won't run without a functioning cam belt will it? That is enough to defeat your claim. They have no liability even within 30 days if they can prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of sale.

Is that a fact or an assumption? Goods get faulty within 30 days, so what's your point?

AdrianC

Yes, goods get faulty.

CRA15 covers faults that cannot be reasonably expected from goods of that type, within six years from purchase. It does not cover reasonable wear, or use outside reasonable expectations.

Within six months, the presumption is that they were present at the point of purchase - unless they can be shown not to have been.

After six months, that onus switches - the presumption is that they weren't present, unless they can be shown to have been.

So we have two questions...

1. Was the car faulty at the time of purchase. The car was running, so the fault could not be predicted. The historical documentation showed the belt had been changed and was still within time and distance. There is no way to verify that documentation, since the garage that are said to have changed it have closed, and inspection is not easily possible. There is no expectation on a supplier to change every possible consumable before purchase.

2. Is this a fault reasonably to be expected from a 140k mile 8yo used car that was at the bottom end of the price range for its type/age/mileage?

If the answer to those is that it was faulty at the time of purchase, and it's not to be reasonably expected, then it's covered by CRA.

Because you're within the first thirty days from purchase, then there's a right to a refund. After that, the supplier has a right to repair or replace.