Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

sevenhills

tightauldgit said:

The problem is... and the sloppy wording of some of those advice sites isn't helping... is that the CRA doesn't say if an item is faulty within 6 months then the fault is presumed to have been there on Day 1.

If that is correct, it would be better for sellers to offer a six month warranty. They could even increase the price, because buyers would be more reassured.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

I love your interpretation.
You see, I am currently in the market for a new car and was going to spend a lot of money.
It turns out, I can buy this instead and save a packet:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202305067077333
There is nothing in the advert suggesting anything other than a perfect car, so I will be covered by consumer rights if anything goes wrong in the first 6 months and get a full refund.
It's got air conditioning, which will be especially good with the summer coming.
If the car is still working in 6 months, then that will be fantastic - but this is a win-win for me, either a great car that keeps me going for decades to come or a clapped out banger that I can send back because of whatever fault and get my full refund.

In fact, of the cars I did actually call up to see, I found from my own investigations:

• one a previous taxi rather than the 17k mile 4 yo car it purported to be - franchised dealer
• one advertised at 51k miles had 63k miles a year ago - car supermarket
• one prior accident damage - independent back-street dealer

I was clearly wasting my time with those investigations.  I should have just bought one of the cars and then sorted it all out and reject for a full refund after 6 months.

The OP didn't buy a £600 car, they spent fourteen thousand pounds on a van. 

What tends to happen with these threads is some advice is posted about consumer rights
A response follows to say that is wrong because....
A reasoned respond is provided
That response is ignored and instead we go down a tangent
Rinse and repeat. 

This thread is a prime example of that.

We've gone from having to advise the customer that the DPF filter has a 100k mile lifespan on a £14k van with 100k miles on the clock to why dealers shouldn't have to tell customers to check their tyre pressure, to not changing the brake fluid could kill someone (melodramatic in my view but we're running with it) and the dealer shouldn't have to mention that (just let the absurdity of that sink in, you are saying a car dealer shouldn't tell the customer about something that could, by your assumption, kill someone), now we are on to buying a £600 banger. 

If this was pub chat then who cares but OP has come here for help and advice on their consumer rights after having a problem with a £14k purchase, granted it's free advice but it could at least come without the inane spiral of obscure hypotheticals.

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Which aspect of the legislation, any guidance or court decisions are you relying on to place the burden upon the consumer to ask questions or state that a cam belt nearing the end of it's life is not material information? 

I am not relying on any part of the legislation.
I am relying on the fact that the replacement schedule of the cam belt is public domain information.
The age and mileage of the car being purchased is stated by the Dealer and can be assessed by the purchaser against that public domain information...

I'm sorry, but to me that just means you've made your point up out of thin air and has no basis in anything except what you think is "right".

The question about "where in the legislation does it support your point of view?" is important because virtually all consumer protection in this country is based on legislation - and that's because the common law gave virtually no protection to consumers at all.  (eg caveat emptor).

If you can't find any requirement in consumer legislation for a prospective consumer to do "due diligence", or to carry out basic research, or to know what is in the public domain, then the consumer need not do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no such requirement under UK consumer law so if you know where it is, please tell.

Note that I am not suggesting that not carrying out appropriate research before buying a second-hand car is either a prudent or a sensible thing to do, but I am saying that the law does not require a consumer to have done so in order to exercise their consumer rights under the appropriate legislation.  The law doesn't distinguish between ignorant consumers on one hand and  knowledgeable consumers on the other.

Also the whole point of consumer legislation is that it is biased in favour of consumers and against traders.  It isn't designed to be a level playing field - it was designed to be tilted in the consumer's favour.

Somebody commented on another thread a few weeks ago along the lines of "the law won't allow a trader to be held responsible for things beyond their control or that they don't know about", but that is precisely what the CRA does.

I love your interpretation.
You see, I am currently in the market for a new car and was going to spend a lot of money.
It turns out, I can buy this instead and save a packet:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202305067077333
There is nothing in the advert suggesting anything other than a perfect car, so I will be covered by consumer rights if anything goes wrong in the first 6 months and get a full refund.
It's got air conditioning, which will be especially good with the summer coming.
If the car is still working in 6 months, then that will be fantastic - but this is a win-win for me, either a great car that keeps me going for decades to come or a clapped out banger that I can send back because of whatever fault and get my full refund.

In fact, of the cars I did actually call up to see, I found from my own investigations:

• one a previous taxi rather than the 17k mile 4 yo car it purported to be - franchised dealer
• one advertised at 51k miles had 63k miles a year ago - car supermarket
• one prior accident damage - independent back-street dealer

I was clearly wasting my time with those investigations.  I should have just bought one of the cars and then sorted it all out and reject for a full refund after 6 months.

Sorry but have you quoted the wrong post?

I don't see how what you've said follows on from what you've quoted?

(In the post you quote I was questioning your apparent belief that - although the law doesn't say so - consumers are either obliged to ask questions of the seller or to make use of their knowledge of what is in the "public domain" in order to be allowed to exercise their statutory rights, and that the seller isn't necessarily obliged to volunteer relevant or material information.  I didn't mention anything about 6 months.  In fact if you'd read my previous posts properly you would realise that I'm not at all convinced that the 6 months rule even applies to used cars... )

Grumpy_chap

Carlisle1967 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlisle1967 said:

So grumpy_chap you’re interpretation is if you spend 20k on a used Tesla and it packs up in a couple of months that’s you’re fault as a battery is a consumable part?

I don't think I said that.
I don't think I said anything about batteries.

That said, the 12V battery in a car is a consumable part and if it failed on a used car shortly after purchase, I'd probably accept that as a consumable part.

I'd also expect to pay for the time belt to be changed if the car crossed over the recommended interval as per manufacturer service schedule.

So far as I am aware, EV manufacturers do not list battery replacement (for the motive power battery) as a maintenance item.  On that basis, the battery is not a consumable part.

How is a battery not a consumable part as they degrade over time, use and how they they are charged?

Is everything that degrades over time a consumable part?

Engines degrade, car bodywork degrades, head gaskets degrade.  None of these are considered consumable or listed with a manufacturer's maintenance schedule.

Manxman_in_exile said:

if I were the dealer in your hypothetical question (as originally posed) I would answer as follows:

I would examine the service history in my possession and check whether the items you have mentioned have been carried out according to the manufacturer's recommendations.  Assuming that they had, I would draw to a prospective buyer's attention that the timing belt and aux belt were due for replacement in about 6 months, and that the brake fluid and coolant also needed draining and changing at the same time.

If I didn't have a full service history or I was otherwise uncertain as to whether everything had been done that should have been done, then I would either have the necessary work carried out myself or I would tell any prospective purchaser that the brake fluid and coolant and spark plugs and air filter might need changing now and that the timing belt and aux belt will soon be due for renewal.  Although if I were a prospective purchaser and a dealer told me that, I'd run a mile.

And, in the real world, how often does any of that happen?
This is not just dodgy back-street garages.
I know as I am currently looking to buy a car and I've seen unmentioned history information from a Jaguar at a Jaguar Dealer (previous taxi use), a Tesla at a Car Supermarket (mileage discrepancy) and a Fiat at a dodgy back-street trader (past accident history). 
Not one of these Dealers mentioned these things in their adverts or when I first called them up.  I then did my own checks, found the data quickly and easily (at no charge in two cases, one I paid for HPI).  When I then called to clarify with the Dealers, all three initially denied any knowledge but then reverted to say something along the lines of "well, we've run some more checks and that could be the case, but there was nothing showing when we purchased the car into stock."  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

And, in the real world, how often does any of that happen?
This is not just dodgy back-street garages.
I know as I am currently looking to buy a car and I've seen unmentioned history information from a Jaguar at a Jaguar Dealer (previous taxi use), a Tesla at a Car Supermarket (mileage discrepancy) and a Fiat at a dodgy back-street trader (past accident history). 
Not one of these Dealers mentioned these things in their adverts or when I first called them up.  I then did my own checks, found the data quickly and easily (at no charge in two cases, one I paid for HPI).  When I then called to clarify with the Dealers, all three initially denied any knowledge but then reverted to say something along the lines of "well, we've run some more checks and that could be the case, but there was nothing showing when we purchased the car into stock."  

Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't do checks, it's very smart to do so as it saves you a big headache, what is being said is that if you hadn't have done those checks you'd be covered by consumer protection legislation to seek a remedy/redress. 

Regarding the mileage, there is a guide here (Business Companion is government backed guidance on the legislation) 

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/goods/mileage-of-used-vehicles

I'm not going to quote it all, it's there if you wish to read and find out why the 2nd place selling a car with the wrong milage advertised was possibly committing a criminal offence by engaging in a commercial practice that is misleading (under the unfair trading regs). 

From the guide, the odometer of a car is a description, and had you found out after purchasing a car that the mileage is incorrect it's not something that can be repaired or replaced so you would have a choice between reject for a refund (minus use) or seek a price reduction as the car would not have conformed to the contract. Alternatively the unfair trading regs may give rise to a discount based on the seriousness of the prohibited practice, right to redress under this act doesn't come up here often so it's not something I'm fully versed in but you can read here if interested:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/part/4A

Separately the dealer would have to show they carry out the due diligence and staff training mentioned in guide (or something similar to it) if they were prosecuted for committing an offence by engaging in misleading actions and/or omissions, the most important aspect is, the car dealer market in general not carrying out such methods mentioned in the guide simply wouldn't be a defence against the legislation. 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't do checks, it's very smart to do so as it saves you a big headache, what is being said is that if you hadn't have done those checks you'd be covered by consumer protection legislation to seek a remedy/redress. 



Separately the dealer would have to show they carry out the due diligence and staff training mentioned in guide (or something similar to it) if they were prosecuted for committing an offence by engaging in misleading actions and/or omissions, the most important aspect is, the car dealer market in general not carrying out such methods mentioned in the guide simply wouldn't be a defence against the legislation. 

Thank you.

I wonder what checks the Dealers do as standard?
In all three cases, the Dealers initially responded along the lines that "nothing like that showed up when they did their normal pre-purchase checks".
If the Dealer does no checks, can they then claim they did not know?

In fairness to the one with the mileage discrepancy, they did provide more response than the simple "shrug" of the others - claimed they had a HPI check prior to purchase so did not understand how my HPI check showed the discrepancy but they'd repeated the HPI check and mine appeared to be correct.
I called on a Friday and by Monday the car was removed from their website - whether that means they removed it or sold it I'll never know.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Nobody is suggesting you shouldn't do checks, it's very smart to do so as it saves you a big headache, what is being said is that if you hadn't have done those checks you'd be covered by consumer protection legislation to seek a remedy/redress. 



Separately the dealer would have to show they carry out the due diligence and staff training mentioned in guide (or something similar to it) if they were prosecuted for committing an offence by engaging in misleading actions and/or omissions, the most important aspect is, the car dealer market in general not carrying out such methods mentioned in the guide simply wouldn't be a defence against the legislation. 

Thank you.

I wonder what checks the Dealers do as standard?
In all three cases, the Dealers initially responded along the lines that "nothing like that showed up when they did their normal pre-purchase checks".
If the Dealer does no checks, can they then claim they did not know?

In fairness to the one with the mileage discrepancy, they did provide more response than the simple "shrug" of the others - claimed they had a HPI check prior to purchase so did not understand how my HPI check showed the discrepancy but they'd repeated the HPI check and mine appeared to be correct.
I called on a Friday and by Monday the car was removed from their website - whether that means they removed it or sold it I'll never know.

If the dealer had done the HPI and cross referenced against MOT history and the car's paperwork history yet it wasn't possible to know the milage was incorrect they could use that as a defence against prosecution. 

For you as a consumer with the odometer acting as a description it will still be matter of fact that the car did not meet the description meaning you'd be entitled to reject/price reduction.

The biggest problem for a dealer is when they do know the milage is incorrect as they have to be very careful how they advertise and sell the car to you. They'd have to tell you the milage is incorrect and not use the odometer reading as any part of their advert or sales patter, were they to go against this that would be misleading. 

With the Fiat the type of damage could affect whether the trader was misleading, this article covers it better than I can:

https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/does-seller-declare-damage/

Car dealers, on the other hand, must abide by various laws, including the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. That means you do have some consumer protection, although it can still be difficult to win an argument to reject a car or claim compensation if you feel that you’ve been deceived into buying a damaged car.

The law does not specify what sort of damage must be declared by a seller. Instead, it talks about unfair trading practices, and the language is fairly broad and open to interpretation.

Basically, anything that would cause the average consumer to buy a car when they wouldn’t have otherwise done so is considered unfair. So a dealer failing to disclose damage could be seen as unfair if it means that you bought a car in the belief that it had not been damaged and repaired, and wouldn’t have bought the car if you knew it had been damaged.

But that’s not very clear. What sort of damage would cause the ‘average consumer’ to not buy a car, even if it was properly repaired? A small scratch? A dent? Mechanical damage?

If I told you that the used car you’re looking at had had a door repainted because of a minor dent, but that the damage was miniscule and the repair work was done by a manufacturer-approved body shop, would it stop you from buying the car?

There’s no clear line in the sand, and what will seem acceptable to one customer will be totally unacceptable to another. So the ‘average consumer’ definition is a lawyer’s delight but generally unhelpful to the rest of us.

The link comes with a caveat that some of the wording in the rest of the article falls under that everyday language which would could be misunderstood depending upon how an individual applies the meaning of certain words. 

The last line in that quote is the problem but can be countered with the cost of small claims for the dealer, it may be a waste of time taking a back street dealer to court as even if you win you may not ever see the money, the car supermarket place on the other hand may not want to suffer the time and costs of a small claim over a few hundred pounds and so agree to pay out, unless they feel the customer's claim is without merit. 

Carlisle1967

Just on the original question is the feeling its all down to me? From the replies taken from this thread the general feeling seems to be.

Used cars have consumable parts so any of these are down for me to repair / replace after 30 days.

Large franchise car dealers can just say it was fine when you took it and I cannot prove it was faulty or that I haven't caused the fault.

I should research when all parts of a vehicle need replacing beforehand along with their lifespan according to manufactures maintenance schedules regardless of full service history.

There is no way to check the condition of a DPF filter so this should be expected to fail at 100k

Regardless of costs, if you want something you can take back with a major fault after 30 days then buy new from a main dealer.

The consumer rights specifically for used vehicles is incorrect or misleading, and that the emphasis is on the buyer in the first 6 months to prove it was faulty at purchase, or the fault is not do with anything that needs maintenance or has a lifespan.

I think I will sort out a solution myself this week to get it back on the road.

 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Carlisle1967 said:

Just on the original question is the feeling its all down to me? From the replies taken from this thread the general feeling seems to be.

Used cars have consumable parts so any of these are down for me to repair / replace after 30 days.

Large franchise car dealers can just say it was fine when you took it and I cannot prove it was faulty or that I haven't caused the fault.

I should research when all parts of a vehicle need replacing beforehand along with their lifespan according to manufactures maintenance schedules regardless of full service history.

There is no way to check the condition of a DPF filter so this should be expected to fail at 100k

Regardless of costs, if you want something you can take back with a major fault after 30 days then buy new from a main dealer.

The consumer rights specifically for used vehicles is incorrect or misleading, and that the emphasis is on the buyer in the first 6 months to prove it was faulty at purchase, or the fault is not do with anything that needs maintenance or has a lifespan.

I think I will sort out a solution myself this week to get it back on the road.

 

Hello OP

Firstly you need to make sure you are a consumer which is defined as:

(3)“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

If you are then you need to establish what is wrong with the van, you can approach the dealer and say there is an issue and you expect them to repair the van. If they refuse to engage then have it repaired (at a reasonable cost), send the dealer a letter before action (templates on Google) stating the omission that the filter (assuming that's the problem) was at the end of it's life was a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations as it altered your economic behaviour as with this information presented you wouldn't have purchased the van and you are seeking redress.

If that results in an offer towards the repair that would be a result. 

If it doesn't you'd need to look at small claims and decide whether it's worth the trouble of doing + probably seeking a bit of professional advice on the specifics of what you are entitled to. 

Not an ideal situation for you to end up in but hopefully it pans out one way or the other without too much expense on your part  

born_again

Carlisle1967 said:

So grumpy_chap you’re interpretation is if you spend 20k on a used Tesla and it packs up in a couple of months that’s you’re fault as a battery is a consumable part?

Tesla battery warranty
8 years or 100,000 miles,  with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

So 20K car is most likely going to be OK. But many are hitting double that.