Used Car - Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Repair Not Being Offered

strandty

 Hi all. Please find their response that they’ve worked on all day. 

Thank you for your email.  Whilst we cannot comment on any third party advice you may have received in relation to whether or not a vehicle should have passed or failed an MOT we remain of the position that the fact the vehicle passed an MOT demonstrates that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.  Whilst it may be correct of you to state that the fluid leak was not sufficient to be classed as a major failure and therefore result in an overall failure of the vehicle, it would appear you have omitted that in the event the leak was minor then an advisory item would have been recorded of which there are none on the MOT.

It is further correct of you to state that an Mot does not affect your mothers statutory rights but with respect this has never been stated or alleged.  What was stated is that the fault is “deemed” present at point of sale “unless” the dealership can show that the fault was not present.  In this instance the MOT evidences that the fault was not present as the vehicle would have failed the MOT or at the very least it would have been marked as an advisory which would indicate that the issue was underlying at point of sale.  The fact that neither are noted on the MOT evidences that the fault was not present at point of sale. 

 Our position remains unchanged and Prosports have no liability in this matter.

Any advice would be welcome! Should I pursue Santander who are providing the PCP loan for the car?

Mercdriver

The difficulty you may have further down the line is that it having a valid MOT on the day of completion of sale is a strong argument on the balance of probability that the fault wasn't present on the day of sale.  You have to find a way of countering that, as that is the judgement a court will make.  I suspect the dealer is fully aware of this and will just say see you in court.  

Ignore the Fred suggestion that you assume the MOT is dodgy as that is slander territory and will affect your credibility if it goes to court.  

fred246

Realistically you have to pay to have it fixed. You then have to decide if you want to gamble on going to court. The fee for £1000 to £1500 is £70. The whole idea of the Consumer Rights Act is that if you buy a used car from a trader it should be usable without having to pay immediately for repairs. You have the evidence that someone has stuck some sealant on it presumably to part ex it or get it through an MOT. MOT advisories are very subjective. The judge is a bit of a random decision maker. Depends on what mood they are in on the day.

DoaM

DoaM said:

Approach the finance company first to see about a Section 75 claim.

What have the finance company said?

strandty

Mercdriver said:

The difficulty you may have further down the line is that it having a valid MOT on the day of completion of sale is a strong argument on the balance of probability that the fault wasn't present on the day of sale.  You have to find a way of countering that, as that is the judgement a court will make.  I suspect the dealer is fully aware of this and will just say see you in court.  

Ignore the Fred suggestion that you assume the MOT is dodgy as that is slander territory and will affect your credibility if it goes to court.  

In all honesty, the MOT was done 4 days prior to the car being delivered to my Mums home and according to the MOT terms, “the test only relates to the condition of the components at the time of the test. It does not confirm the vehicle will remain roadworthy for the validity of the certificate.”

Wouldn’t this be any grounds for argument, as they only confirmed it passed 4 days before delivery, and it was driven 50 miles to be delivered.

DoaM said:

DoaM said:

Approach the finance company first to see about a Section 75 claim.

What have the finance company said?

Not yet spoke to them, but will be doing I think. Debating whether to try the above argument or go straight to the finance company...

Mercdriver

strandty said:

Mercdriver said:

The difficulty you may have further down the line is that it having a valid MOT on the day of completion of sale is a strong argument on the balance of probability that the fault wasn't present on the day of sale.  You have to find a way of countering that, as that is the judgement a court will make.  I suspect the dealer is fully aware of this and will just say see you in court.  

Ignore the Fred suggestion that you assume the MOT is dodgy as that is slander territory and will affect your credibility if it goes to court.  

In all honesty, the MOT was done 4 days prior to the car being delivered to my Mums home and according to the MOT terms, “the test only relates to the condition of the components at the time of the test. It does not confirm the vehicle will remain roadworthy for the validity of the certificate.”

Wouldn’t this be any grounds for argument, as they only confirmed it passed 4 days before delivery, and it was driven 50 miles to be delivered.

DoaM said:

DoaM said:

Approach the finance company first to see about a Section 75 claim.

What have the finance company said?

Not yet spoke to them, but will be doing I think. Debating whether to try the above argument or go straight to the finance company...

At 4 days since MOT, I still think you would have an uphill battle on the basis of the balance of probability.  Especially if no minor faults that would have been advisories in the old regime.  You would have to prove that it was more likely than not that a car that had passed with no faults was then seriously at fault four days later.

Bobbytrink

I hear your frustration pal as this almost happened to me earlier in the year. Future advice is steer away from warranties as people only realise the headache once they have a policy. I felt and still feel that the dealers knows there is a fault with the car and is quick to promote "it has warranty if anything goes wrong" however they dont tell you that warranty companies will not cover parts "near the end of it's natural cycle". How would you know which part has naturally failed due to age.. you wont unless you are a mechanic and that is the problem.

So that this doesnt stress you all out too much, my advice for now is to launch a small claims as a user had already mentioned. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 does stand for something and I would imagine that half of the people who threaten the dealer with court action dont actually go through with it so once they receive your paperwork, they might wake up. If you lose, you lose but at least you wont fall victim to these warranty plans in future despite their temptation.

If the above fails, you may have to bite the bullet and be glad it isnt an engine issue although I do understand your annoyance.

Good luck with it.

strandty

Bobbytrink said:

I hear your frustration pal as this almost happened to me earlier in the year. Future advice is steer away from warranties as people only realise the headache once they have a policy. I felt and still feel that the dealers knows there is a fault with the car and is quick to promote "it has warranty if anything goes wrong" however they dont tell you that warranty companies will not cover parts "near the end of it's natural cycle". How would you know which part has naturally failed due to age.. you wont unless you are a mechanic and that is the problem.

So that this doesnt stress you all out too much, my advice for now is to launch a small claims as a user had already mentioned. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 does stand for something and I would imagine that half of the people who threaten the dealer with court action dont actually go through with it so once they receive your paperwork, they might wake up. If you lose, you lose but at least you wont fall victim to these warranty plans in future despite their temptation.

If the above fails, you may have to bite the bullet and be glad it isnt an engine issue although I do understand your annoyance.

Good luck with it.

Thanks for that mate. My grievance isn’t with the warranty itself, it’s the warranty company who are providing legal advice for the dealer and are talking on their behalf which I find strange in itself. 

My grievance is that the car displayed a significant fault which will cost over a £1,000 and showed itself 3 weeks after taking delivery of the car. So with that in mind, I’d expect the dealer to cover the cost of repairs under the consumer rights act. 

I spoke to an in house solicitor at work and they mentioned that the dealer have to ensure that the vehicle has to remain fit for purpose for a reasonable period thereafter, and I would strongly argue that 3 weeks is not that. I also found the following on RetailMotorLaw.co.uk:

MOT Proof of no Fault
I would be reluctant to try and argue that the MOT is evidence that there was not a fault with the vehicle at the point of sale. The MOT will demonstrate that the vehicle was roadworthy at the time when it was tested. It would be unwise to try and rely upon the MOT to prove that there were no faults with the car when it was sold to the customer. The purpose of the MOT is not to thoroughly inspect a vehicle and identify if there are any faults with it, but to check that it meets minimum standards specified by DVLA.

It’s an incredibly stressful situation!

Bobbytrink

The warranty company proving legal advice for the dealer is strange. The warranty company should be working alongside hundreds/thousands of dealers so if they are being legal reps to all then this must impact their service when dealing with warranty claims. This also doesnt sound legal as it sound biased.

The dealer will argue that when you left their dealership, the car was in working order. The fact of the matter is, it wasnt and went wrong within 3 weeks which falls within the allotted days of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Dont stress and challenge it. Until you do, the warranty company and dealer will just think that you are another individual who will threaten legal action.

Cheers

strandty

Bobbytrink said:

The warranty company proving legal advice for the dealer is strange. The warranty company should be working alongside hundreds/thousands of dealers so if they are being legal reps to all then this must impact their service when dealing with warranty claims. This also doesnt sound legal as it sound biased.

The dealer will argue that when you left their dealership, the car was in working order. The fact of the matter is, it wasnt and went wrong within 3 weeks which falls within the allotted days of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Dont stress and challenge it. Until you do, the warranty company and dealer will just think that you are another individual who will threaten legal action.

Cheers

It is a strange one isn’t it! Thanks for that. We never actually picked up the car from the dealership, it was delivered with a part exchange car being taken back in return. We have dealt with them before and the car was fantastic for my partner. We did actually continuously ask to see the car when it arrived and was ready to be test driven, but the car was taking forever to have the “repairs” done on breaks etc, before they said it’s ready and can deliver, my mum just thought “fine just get it here”.
 
We dealt with the same agent as my partner did and they sourced the car for my mum, and stated that all health checks etc would be carried out and following my partners experience, i was not going to doubt them. The car was delivered to my mums house 5 weeks after agreeing a sale.

So from MOT that they’re sticking too up to delivery, they maintained ownership for 3 additional days and drove it 45/50 miles to the house. 

Granted we probably should have insisted on seeing the car first etc, but they were taking forever to get the car to us. Thanks for the moral support! I’m not one to give up lightly but it’s beginning to become stressful and especially in the current climate, the threat of £1,000 is horrific.