Used car - engine failure after 2 months

neilmcl

fred246 said:

The last owner probably knew there was a timing chain problem and traded it in instead of repairing it. The dealer is supposedly the expert and would have known there was an issue. The consumer rights act is there to protect you in such a situation. The act assumes there was a problem when it was sold which there undoubtedly was. You can request a repair. They have one attempt to fix. You can then demand some your money back. If the dealer tries to say it was OK at sale it might be worth getting an independent report. You have to be careful about misinformation on this forum. For some reason AdrianC always tells everyone that any fault on any car is normal and should be expected. Total rubbish. If you go to court the judge isn't a used car dealer. Judges know what used car dealers are like. If you pay good money for a car you should get a car that works and does the job that it should do. You need to read as much as you can about cars and the consumer rights act 2015.

Corrected that for you. As the OP's past the point of the short-term right to reject the dealer can reduce any refund to allow for usage the OP has had from the car.

AdrianC

fred246 said:

The last owner probably knew there was a timing chain problem and traded it in instead of repairing it. The dealer is supposedly the expert and would have known there was an issue. The consumer rights act is there to protect you in such a situation. The act assumes there was a problem when it was sold which there undoubtedly was. You can request a repair. They have one attempt to fix. You can then demand some your money back. If the dealer tries to say it was OK at sale it might be worth getting an independent report. You have to be careful about misinformation on this forum.

Indeed you do...

For some reason AdrianC always tells everyone that any fault on any car is normal and should be expected. Total rubbish.

You're right, it would be. Which is why I didn't say that.

If you go to court the judge isn't a used car dealer. Judges know what used car dealers are like. If you pay good money for a car you should get a car that works and does the job that it should do. You need to read as much as you can about cars and the consumer rights act 2015.

Indeed you should...

CRA15 makes allowance for reasonable expectations for used goods of that age, relative price, apparent condition.
This is a nine year old car.
Is it unreasonable for a turbo to fail on a 9yo car? No.
Is it unreasonable for the cambelt to fail on a 9yo car? Did that apparent condition include documentary evidence of it having been changed in the past?

HansOndabush

bartelbe said:

I am no friend of dealers getting out of their responsibilities but unless they informed you it had a recent belt or timing chain change (thread not clear about which you have), I don't see how you have any claim.

It will be a chain. But unfortunately Mercedes changed from a reliable duplex chain in the W202 C Class to a simplex chain from about 2002 onwards on the W203 range and onwards. These are prone to failure from 70K miles onwards.

fred246

If a car is overdue for a timing belt or chain then it should be done by the dealer BEFORE selling it. They are supposedly the experts on cars NOT the customer. The customer should check oil,water,tyre pressures brake fluid etc. When a second hand car is sold it should be OK to make it to the next service. At the next service the garage (who are supposed to be the experts) would check whether anything needs changing. Luckily judges won't have any idea on timing belt/chain intervals and hopefully will support the customer. They bought a car and expect it to function as a car. They didn't buy a timebomb.

macman

The dealer is under no such obligations at all. It's up to the buyer to check the service history and check what has been done or not done. The dealer does not have to 'change a timing belt if it is overdue'. All the dealer has to do is not misrepresent the vehicle, answer any questions truthfully, and to make sure it is roadworthy at the point of sale. Which this vehicle was.
You seem unable to distinguish between what you would like the law to be and what it actually is.

fred246

macman said:

The dealer is under no such obligations at all. It's up to the buyer to check the service history and check what has been done or not done. The dealer does not have to 'change a timing belt if it is overdue'. All the dealer has to do is not misrepresent the vehicle, answer any questions truthfully, and to make sure it is roadworthy at the point of sale. Which this vehicle was.
You seem unable to distinguish between what you would like the law to be and what it actually is.

If you sell a vehicle with an overdue timing belt it is liable to snap at any time which could cause an accident. You could argue that it is unroadworthy which is a criminal offence. If it snaps then the vehicle isn't fit for purpose because the car won't move and a car is supposed to be able to move. That's the whole purpose of a car. Under the consumer rights act the garage would then have to repair or refund. The whole purpose of the act is to protect the consumer from dodgy garages selling cars that aren't fit for purpose. If you pay £8K for a car you can expect something that moves along the road. If it doesn't the dealer has to fix it or refund. At the end of the day the decision is with the judge. A common sense approach is used. The customer isn't supposed to know everything about cars. That is the job of the dealer. The dealer shouldn't be selling cars which they know are overdue an essential servicing item and that the failure to do this could lead to catastrophic damage.

fred990

Wow, a dealer under no obligation to change an overdue timing belt/chain! Really? 
It's up to the buyer? 
Maybe that's everything wrong with buying second hand cars that you can't fix yourself? 

AdrianC

fred990 said:

Wow, a dealer under no obligation to change an overdue timing belt/chain! Really? 

No, they aren't.

You can, of course, try to negotiate the work to be done as part of the purchase deal. And you can, of course, buy a different car if they don't.

fred990

AdrianC said:

fred990 said:

Wow, a dealer under no obligation to change an overdue timing belt/chain! Really? 

No, they aren't.

You can, of course, try to negotiate the work to be done as part of the purchase deal. And you can, of course, buy a different car if they don't.

Maybe but I was referring to proper main dealers who offer warranties on used cars and not the cowboys. 
VW/Audi currently give two years on used, no way would they ignore an overdue belt/pump/tensioner/relay. 

AdrianC

fred990 said:

AdrianC said:

fred990 said:

Wow, a dealer under no obligation to change an overdue timing belt/chain! Really? 

No, they aren't.

You can, of course, try to negotiate the work to be done as part of the purchase deal. And you can, of course, buy a different car if they don't.

Maybe but I was referring to proper main dealers who offer warranties on used cars

Lovely, an' all, but this thread's about a 9yo car bought without a warranty from a "small dealer".

Your other ID's been banned, has it, Fred<threerandomdigits>?