Cambelt snapped within 7 days from purchase

AdrianC

kozlikha wrote: »

So I have no rights having bought a used car from a dealer, nice.

Yes, you do.

But those rights are tempered by reasonable expectations for a car of that age/mileage/relative price/apparent condition.

You want a new car, buy a new car.
If you buy an 8yo, 140k car that's priced towards the bottom end of the range for that age/type/mileage... don't expect a new car.

I will probably go see a solicitor that specialises in consumer rights.

And they'll tell you the same.

kozlikha

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, you do.

But those rights are tempered by reasonable expectations for a car of that age/mileage/relative price/apparent condition.

You want a new car, buy a new car.
If you buy an 8yo, 140k car that's priced towards the bottom end of the range for that age/type/mileage... don't expect a new car.

And they'll tell you the same.

I don't accept that. This may well be your outlook, but as far as I'm concerned I'm out of pocket and the dealer is laughing all the way to the bank, 0 responsibility. To me this is unacceptable.

AdrianC

It's not just "my outlook". It's the law.

You can ask a court to adjudicate on whether the supplier owes you a full refund - by returning the car and launching a claim if he doesn't then pay you. You may well win. You might not.

I'm very sorry if you don't like that. I'm not sure what else you want us to say.

The basic legal premise of buying used goods is that you're in the same position as you could reasonably expect to be in if you'd bought them new and they'd failed at this age. Is it reasonable to expect this issue on a car of this age/previous use/apparent condition?


On a late-middle-aged, low-priced, high-mileage used car... do you really think it both possible and reasonable for a used car dealer to be held responsible for every single issue that might perhaps possibly occur?

When the documentation with the car says the cam belt isn't due for replacement yet, what precautions should that dealer take to ensure that it's not about to fail imminently? Bear in mind replacement is ~£100-150 of parts and the thick end of half a day of labour. Around 10% of the retail price of the car. Probably about the same as his margin on it. Should that be done routinely for every single used car they sell, regardless of the documentation? What about all the other points of potential failure?

If the answer to all those is "yes"... then congratulations, you've just completely killed the used car market, because nobody's going to pay the prices that would have to be charged.

Aylesbury_Duck

kozlikha wrote: »

I don't accept that. This may well be your outlook, but as far as I'm concerned I'm out of pocket and the dealer is laughing all the way to the bank, 0 responsibility. To me this is unacceptable.

That's fine, but you may have to accept it if it doesn't turn out as you want it to. You can argue as much as you like with people on here, but the advice you're getting is correct. You might get what you want, but it's entirely possible that you won't because of the circumstances.

kozlikha

Look, who is a qualified solicitor here? Who went to court with a dealer? These are mere opinions, but I'm to accept them as law? Come on.

BananaRepublic

Some people are making very concrete statements without any indication of their expertise/experience in this area. Are people here traders? This link might be of use:

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/your-rights-if-something-is-wrong-with-your-car

There are other online sources too.

When you buy from a dealer, you pay more than privately. Why? Because you have more rights, and expect that the goods are as described. According to various sources onlne, for the first six months the dealer needs to prove the fault wasn’t present when the car was sold. For it to fail so soon suggests it was already faulty. Try and reject the car as per the link above. Do it in writing using recorded delivery, explaining politely the reasons. You have 30 days from purchase. He’ll probably say no, but at least you will have tried within the time limit. Citizens advice should help too, or whatever they call themselves this week.

AdrianC

BananaRepublic wrote: »

According to various sources onlne, for the first six months the dealer needs to prove the fault wasn’t present when the car was sold.

Yes. As has been said repeatedly above.


But what you haven't mentioned are the sticking points here...


That the dealer can show categorically that the fault wasn't present at the time of purchase... because it started/ran/drove just fine, which it wouldn't (and didn't) with a snapped cambelt.

And, perhaps even more pertinently, whether that's a reasonable fault to occur on an 8yo, 140k car with a documented cambelt change 3yrs/50k ago.

It even says as much in the link you've provided...

(For a used car, “satisfactory quality” takes into account the car’s age and mileage.)

But if you don't believe us, here's the legislation itself...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

The relevant bit here is section 9, subsection 2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9/enacted

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

kozlikha

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes. As has been said repeatedly above.


But what you haven't mentioned are the sticking points here...


That the dealer can show categorically that the fault wasn't present at the time of purchase... because it started/ran/drove just fine, which it wouldn't (and didn't) with a snapped cambelt.

And, perhaps even more pertinently, whether that's a reasonable fault to occur on an 8yo, 140k car with a documented cambelt change 3yrs/50k ago.

It even says as much in the link you've provided...


But if you don't believe us, here's the legislation itself...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents/enacted

The relevant bit here is section 9, subsection 2
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9/enacted

All above can be disputed as open to interpretation. I bought a car with a 12 month warranty according to the ad, turns out it's max £200 per claim, what sort of useless warranty is that? I will argue that dealer should have stipulated that warranty is capped, but they didn't. The rest I already said previously. My goods are now unusable and warranty isn't applicable as repairs will be over £1k for sure. I'm within 30 days period and whether there was or wasn't a fault when I picked it up can not be proven, but what's evident is that it's also impossible to prove whether service history is also genuine.

AdrianC

kozlikha wrote: »

All above can be disputed as open to interpretation.

And that's the job of the court.

I bought a car with a 12 month warranty according to the ad, turns out it's max £200 per claim, what sort of useless warranty is that?

It's the one you bought.

I will argue that dealer should have stipulated that warranty is capped, but they didn't.

Did you ask to read the warranty documentation prior to purchase? There's no such thing as a totally uncapped aftermarket warranty - especially not on a £3.5k 8yo 140k used car.

I'm within 30 days period

And all that means is that if the fault does come under CRA, then you are due a full refund. No argument, no quibble, no repairs.

and whether there was or wasn't a fault when I picked it up can not be proven

Because it's within six months of purchase, the onus is on the supplier to prove it wasn't.

You say it was.
They say it wasn't, because the documentation showed the belt had been replaced within interval, and the car started/drove/ran, and and and.
You say "But that proves nothing, because maybe it wasn't changed as shown".
Did they prove it? The legal test is whether it was proven "on the balance of probabilities", because this is a civil court. The court decides.

Let's say the court agrees with you that the fault was present.
There's still a second test. Whether it's not a reasonable fault to expect on an 8yo, low-end-priced, 140k mile car albeit with a documented (but uncheckable) belt change in the service history.

If the court agrees with you on BOTH of those tests, you get a full refund.

but what's evident is that it's also impossible to prove whether service history is also genuine.

Yes, and? I'm really not sure what you want to do about that. The business that are documented to have done the work no longer exists. So what, exactly, do you expect here?

kimplus8

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.

no necessarily true, a car can run with a defunct cam belt until the point that it snaps, the fault can be there for a while before the belt breaks causing awareness of the fault.