Used car - engine failure after 2 months

fred246

I think AdrianC needs to do a bit more reading around the Consumer Rights Act. The car must be of satisfactory quality and be 'durable'. A car overdue a timing belt is a timebomb. The dealer could sell it like that if the advert clearly stated "in urgent need of a timing belt". If the timing belt breaks the vehicle is obviously not 'durable' and the trader will be liable for repairs or refund. The timing belt breaking is 100% avoidable and the responsibility lies with the trader as the knowledgeable person.

HansOndabush

Can we get away from timing belts? The car that is the subject of this thread has a chain. The engine/chain concerned has a poor design prone to early failure. I am not sure that a dealer would necessarily know that a chain is about to go or that they should always have the expense of replacing it before selling the car on, as Fred implies.
The warning signs of the chain failing are rattling, especially at start up. Did the OP notice this?

fred246

Well the law says that up to 6 months the fault was there when the car was sold unless the dealer proves otherwise. So the dealer has to pay for the fixing of the car unless he could prove to the satisfaction of a judge that the timing chain was fine at the time of sale.

Ectophile

macman said:

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.

The CRA says nothing about service schedules.  I didn't say anything about service schedules either.  But goods sold by a trader must be fit for purpose, and you have rights if they are not.

HansOndabush

fred246 said:

Well the law says that up to 6 months the fault was there when the car was sold unless the dealer proves otherwise. So the dealer has to pay for the fixing of the car unless he could prove to the satisfaction of a judge that the timing chain was fine at the time of sale.

'It ran luvly when I sold it m'lord'
But seriously; if the car has run for 2 months then wouldn't that be sufficient proof that the chain was working when sold?

fred246

I once had a problem with a car that needed an expensive repair. The response from the motor trade was "trade it in quick". When I read the Consumer Rights Act I thought "Ah that's to stop dodgy trade ins being passed on to unsuspecting customers". Don't you think that the original driver noticing the problem has decided to get rid of the car rather than have it fixed? Would an independent report say that the chain was probably in a bad way at the time of sale?

HansOndabush

Not sure that an independent report could say what state the chain was in two months prior to their inspection. Also you can't expect a dealer to strip down an engine to ascertain the state of a chain. The dealer might argue the new owner has abused the car; over-revving it and that caused the chain failure; is that a possibility? I'm not saying a car shouldn't function as a car for 6 months after purchase but the waters are muddied as to how much the dealer is liable.

fred246

The whole point of the consumer rights act is that the car is assumed to be faulty at sale unless the dealer can prove it wasn't. So the dealer is liable unless he can prove he isn't. So if the chain is 8 years old and looks like it has worn out over 8 years then the dealer is liable. If the chain looks perfect except that it has suddenly inexplicably broken in two then you could argue it must have been perfect at sale. If it was caused by over revving the dealer would need a report saying that. The whole point of a consumer rights act is to give rights to consumers. If you pay good money for a car you get a car not a lump of useless metal and glass etc that doesn't move.

HansOndabush

Sure. If the dealer won't play ball, and they usually don't, then you are left with throwing more money at reports and pursuing a court case, the outcome of which is not guaranteed but I agree there is a good case. While that is going on you have no car.

If you can afford it, then after trying to get the dealer to fix it and failing; you could get the car repaired yourself/swap in another engine and claim those costs back using a court action. At least then you have a car.

If the dealer is ultra-dodgy they will change the company name so there will be nothing to get your money back from even though you might win the court case.

fred246

The car is faulty unless proven otherwise so it is the dealer who needs reports not the customer. It is pretty easy to file a claim with moneyclaimonline. If you buy a second hand car you pay a lot more for these rights. It would have to be a very small company that changes it's name everytime someone claims.