Used car - engine failure after 2 months

fred246

The consumer rights act 2015 was obviously written to address the problem of dodgy car dealers selling cars with known problems to the unsuspecting public. It assumes that the car was faulty and it is up to the dealer to prove that it was fine at the point of sale. So if the timing belt failed because it's change was overdue then the dealer will have to pay for repair or refund. The dealer can't argue that the car was OK at the point of sale.

fred990

AdrianC said:

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>?

My bad, missed the small dealer aspect.
You are of course completely wrong about being banned? 
Maybe you can compare the IP addresses (or whatever it is) to put your mind at rest? 

fred246

The law doesn't differentiate between large and small dealers. When a customer pays good money for a car and it fails because of a problem that it was sold with the dealer has to repair or refund the vehicle.

fred246

You can bet a used car dealer wouldn't give you as much for a car that needs a timing belt change.

Ectophile

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.

Those are the rights you get when buying from a private seller.  Buying from a dealer, you have all the Consumer Rights Act protections on top.

I don't know why there are people on this forum who try to make out that if you buy a second-hand car from a dealer, then you have no consumer rights, and if it goes wrong, that's tough.

ontheroad1970

They are even answering each other now.  I wonder which two browsers they are using to alternate?

Ms_Chocaholic

How many miles have you done in the car since purchase?

Would that be relevant guys in terms of helping the OP.

macman

Ectophile said:

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.

Those are the rights you get when buying from a private seller.  Buying from a dealer, you have all the Consumer Rights Act protections on top.

I don't know why there are people on this forum who try to make out that if you buy a second-hand car from a dealer, then you have no consumer rights, and if it goes wrong, that's tough.

So, which section of CRA 2015 says that a dealer has to sell a vehicle with a fully up to date service schedule? CRA gives you some consumer protection not enjoyed by those buying privately. It does not guarantee that a vehicle is free of faults. Particularly when it's 9 years old.

fred246

Used car dealers will know everything about timing belts. "It needs a new timing belt. I'll have to knock a few hundred off". There is no excuse for them not knowing if a timing belt is overdue. If they sell it to a customer without telling them they are selling a vehicle with a known problem. If it breaks it will normally cause a lot of engine damage. It could potentially lead to a serious accident. So if an overdue timing belt snaps in the first year the dealer should repair or refund the car. It's unlikely but if a snapped timing belt led to a serious accident the dealer could be charged with a criminal offence. You could argue that a car with an overdue timing belt is not roadworthy because it could fail catastrophically at any time. If anyone asks on the forum "my timing belt is due can I leave it?". The answer is always "NO,NO,NO". Why should a dealer be allowed to sell a car to an unsuspecting customer with a timing belt that obviously needs replacing? The CONSUMER RIGHTS ACTS is obviously set up to protect customers from dodgy garages. They obviously need it!

AdrianC

Ectophile said:

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.

Those are the rights you get when buying from a private seller.  Buying from a dealer, you have all the Consumer Rights Act protections on top.

Yes, you do.

And those protections are tempered by reasonable expectations for used goods of that age, relative price, and apparent quality.

Or are you trying to say that the CRA provides the exact same protections, expectations, recompense for a 9yo car sold by a small dealer as for a 1yo approved-used from a main dealer? For a used car with a fully documented service history as one with none? For a used car that's the most expensive of its type as one that's right at the bottom of the price range? For a used car that's described as "PX to clear" as one that's described as "immaculate, excellent condition"?

I don't know why there are people on this forum who try to make out that if you buy a second-hand car from a dealer, then you have no consumer rights, and if it goes wrong, that's tough.

If you mean me, that's not at all what I'm saying.
If you mean somebody else, perhaps you'd be so kind as to identify them?