Got Faulty Car Repaird by Third Party

RogerBareford

Conor1999 said:

3. This is true. However, I would hope that a judge would assume the mechanic's report is true and sincere. Moreover, there is photographic evidence of the broken wheel nuts (and I have the wheel nuts in a bag). Though I do understand your point.

Why would the judge assume the mechanics report is true when the mechanic has attempted to fix the fault based on that report and failed?

Conor1999

RogerBareford said:

Conor1999 said:

3. This is true. However, I would hope that a judge would assume the mechanic's report is true and sincere. Moreover, there is photographic evidence of the broken wheel nuts (and I have the wheel nuts in a bag). Though I do understand your point.

Why would the judge assume the mechanics report is true when the mechanic has attempted to fix the fault based on that report and failed?

Because the report details a valid reason for the clutch sticking. The initial repairs did not fix the entire issue, but rather an element of it. As frustrating as it is that I spent £700 on a repair that did not wholly remedy the problem, I can see that the issue may lie deeper than the mechanic believed. 

All of this said, I do see where you're coming from.

born_again

I think the biggest issue is going to be you did not give the seller any chance to fix the issue. Which could be the argument the dealer will use.

RogerBareford

Conor1999 said:

RogerBareford said:

Conor1999 said:

3. This is true. However, I would hope that a judge would assume the mechanic's report is true and sincere. Moreover, there is photographic evidence of the broken wheel nuts (and I have the wheel nuts in a bag). Though I do understand your point.

Why would the judge assume the mechanics report is true when the mechanic has attempted to fix the fault based on that report and failed?

Because the report details a valid reason for the clutch sticking. The initial repairs did not fix the entire issue, but rather an element of it. As frustrating as it is that I spent £700 on a repair that did not wholly remedy the problem, I can see that the issue may lie deeper than the mechanic believed. 

All of this said, I do see where you're coming from.

Yeah the point i was making is that you can't expect anyone to take that report as being true when a repair was attempted based on that report which proved that it wasn't actually the issue by not fixing the problem.

So no matter what you do i can't see how you will ever get reimbursed the £700 for a repair that didn't fix the issue.

CardinalWolsey

born_again said:

I think the biggest issue is going to be you did not give the seller any chance to fix the issue. Which could be the argument the dealer will use.

This.

You have to give the seller the opportunity to inspect and remedy the issue. As the consumer, you don't get to choose what remedy you would like - the seller does. They might have offered to take the car back and refund you. They might have decided to repair, at their cost - but within their facilities (and therefore at their cost price). I doubt they would be authorising a third-party garage to commit to unknown costs on their behalf.

Plus, the OP is finding out the true value of second-hand car warranties.

Conor1999

CardinalWolsey said:

born_again said:

I think the biggest issue is going to be you did not give the seller any chance to fix the issue. Which could be the argument the dealer will use.

This.

You have to give the seller the opportunity to inspect and remedy the issue. As the consumer, you don't get to choose what remedy you would like - the seller does. They might have offered to take the car back and refund you. They might have decided to repair, at their cost - but within their facilities (and therefore at their cost price). I doubt they would be authorising a third-party garage to commit to unknown costs on their behalf.

Plus, the OP is finding out the true value of second-hand car warranties.

Actually, this isn't strictly accurate. According to Section 19 (9) to (11) of the CRA 2015:

- "This chapter does not prevent the consumer seeking other remedies..."
- "Those other remedies may be ones...
b) instead of such a remedy"

- "Those other remedies include any of the following that is open to the consumer in the circumstances:
a) claiming damages
b) seeking specific performance
c) seeking an order for specific implement
d) relying on the breach against a claim by the trader for the price
e) for breach of an express term, exercising a right to treat the contract as at an end"

Point "a)", I believe, allows me to seek other remedies rather than getting it fixed by the dealer. 

Upon contact with the dealer on June 10th (before ANY work had been carried out on the car - not even a diagnosis - the seller told me that I could get it fixed locally for a cheap price and that it would be an easy and quick job. They also told me the warranty would cover the cost. At no point did either party offer or request a repair/refund from the seller. 

On the call on July 4th, the seller made clear that he has nothing to do with the car because it is 28 days after the sale date. He won't repair the issue or reimburse the cost of repairs in the future. As far as he's concerned, the car was not his responsibility after 28 days had passed. That, he is adamant about.

Had I known all of this (my rights) on June 10th, I would have requested a repair at the seller's expense. However, considering the dangerous wheel locking nuts that the car was sold with, I do not believe it would have been repaired safely.

Conor1999

Surely I could get reimbursed for a repair that fixed an actual issue, even if it wasn't the initial complaint? Depression of the clutch pedal was causing damage to the clutch guide tube and clutch fork, which has since been fixed. The mechanic believed that this was the cause of the sticky clutch - which may have been wide of the mark - but it remains true that a very real issue has been remedied. 

Just not the original complaint. Is it the law that only the original complaint can be reimbursed for?     

lincroft1710

Conor1999 said:

Surely I could get reimbursed for a repair that fixed an actual issue, even if it wasn't the initial complaint? Depression of the clutch pedal was causing damage to the clutch guide tube and clutch fork, which has since been fixed. The mechanic believed that this was the cause of the sticky clutch - which may have been wide of the mark - but it remains true that a very real issue has been remedied. 

Just not the original complaint. Is it the law that only the original complaint can be reimbursed for?     

Assuming you will be using Small Claims then it will be the judge who decides if you should be reimbursed or not. I don't know if this has been mentioned in a previous post, but even if you win at Small Claims, there is no guarantee you will get your money. 

bris

Golden rule is to give the seller a chance to fix the issue, you skipped this step and got a third party involved

You claim will be a difficult one. rejection within 30 days is an option that you also missed, after 30 days things get tricky when you buy a used care.

Age and mileage come into play as far as normal wear and tear is concerened.

Like already said it's cheap to go to the small claims court but this could go either way.

Conor1999

bris said:

Golden rule is to give the seller a chance to fix the issue, you skipped this step and got a third party involved

You claim will be a difficult one. rejection within 30 days is an option that you also missed, after 30 days things get tricky when you buy a used care.

Age and mileage come into play as far as normal wear and tear is concerened.

Like already said it's cheap to go to the small claims court but this could go either way.

The seller called today and has said he’ll pay the money. It was almost as if the previous two conversations had never happened; he spoke as if the plan all along was to pay out. 

Unexpected as he was hell-bent on having nothing to do with the car 3 days ago. Relieved nonetheless.