Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

Manxman_in_exile

I think what @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head has posted is probably the best answer @Carlisle1967 is likely to get here.

I'm going to re-read this thread tomorrow and see if anything else comes to mind...

(Apologies to the OP as the thread has been derailed somewhat - by me and others - because there's been a spate of used car threads and the law isn't as clear as it could be.  Hence the confused discussions...)

Manxman_in_exile

born_again 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?

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.

So if you were a Tesla dealer selling a 7 year and 10 month old Tesla that had done 96,000 miles, do you think the law would want you to advertise to (or otherwise inform) prospective purchasers that they might very well have to shell out for a new battery in a couple of months?

Or would you expect them to find that out themselves?

(I don't know but I assume a new battery for a Tesla is pretty costly and it might affect my decision whether or not to buy the car)

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027326#Comment_80027326

Posted this before

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights-aAnMC5b0ZzJb

 You must consider the age, price, mileage, description applied and all other relevant circumstances when trying to decide whether the vehicle is of satisfactory quality.

I'm just re-reading this at the moment.

The link you give from Which? specifically says this:

"I've owned the car for less than six months

If you take the vehicle back within six months of purchase, the dealer should accept there was a problem when the vehicle was sold.

If the dealer doesn't accept there was a problem when the vehicle was sold, they'll have to prove this"  [my bold]

If Which? are right then the dealer has to prove that it is more likely than not that the "problem" (or cause of the problem) was not present when the van was sold.   So the burden of proof (sometimes referred to as the "reverse burden of proof") is on the dealer within the first 6 months.  The buyer need prove nothing according to Which?

If that is correct, I'm not quite sure how the dealer could prove this satisfactorily?

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

So if you were a Tesla dealer selling a 7 year and 10 month old Tesla that had done 96,000 miles, do you think the law would want you to advertise to (or otherwise inform) prospective purchasers that they might very well have to shell out for a new battery in a couple of months?

Or would you expect them to find that out themselves?

(I don't know but I assume a new battery for a Tesla is pretty costly and it might affect my decision whether or not to buy the car)

There is a difference between a warranty ending and a part approaching an extended-period scheduled maintenance activity.  

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So if you were a Tesla dealer selling a 7 year and 10 month old Tesla that had done 96,000 miles, do you think the law would want you to advertise to (or otherwise inform) prospective purchasers that they might very well have to shell out for a new battery in a couple of months?

Or would you expect them to find that out themselves?

(I don't know but I assume a new battery for a Tesla is pretty costly and it might affect my decision whether or not to buy the car)

There is a difference between a warranty ending and a part approaching an extended-period scheduled maintenance activity.  

So I can better understand what you are saying, is your answer in this situation:

(1) "No.  There is no legal obligation on the dealer to tell a prospective buyer either that the scheduled maintenance programme recommends the battery be replaced imminently or that it will shortly go out of warranty", or

(2) "Yes, there is a legal obligation on the dealer to tell a prospective purchaser if the warranty on the battery is about to expire, but not to tell them anything about the battery being scheduled for imminent replacement under the maintenance programme", or

(3) "Yes, there is a legal obligation on the dealer to tell a prospective purchaser that the scheduled maintenance programme recommends that the battery be replaced imminently, but not to tell them anything about the warranty on the battery being about to expire", or

(4)  "No.  Apart from not misdescribing the car or lying when asked, the dealer is not obliged to tell a prospective buyer anything"?

[Edit:  Sorry - should have included at least two other options:  

(5)  "Yes.  The dealer is legally obliged to tell a prospective buyer about both the expiry of the warranty and the recommended scheduled replacement", or

(6)  Something other than the above 5 options  ]

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

So I can better understand what you are saying, is your answer in this situation:

We may be speaking at cross-purposes.

The conversation was discussing the timing belt, which is an item with a recommended replacement interval in the manufacturer's service schedule, typically 8 year / 80k miles up to 10 year / 120k miles.  The queries were about buying a car a few months ahead of that scheduled maintenance being required and whether the Dealer need to tell the customer.

There was then a question about the battery on a Tesla:

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?

There was then a comment about the warranty on a Tesla battery:

born_again said:

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.

Which lead to your query:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So if you were a Tesla dealer selling a 7 year and 10 month old Tesla that had done 96,000 miles, do you think the law would want you to advertise to (or otherwise inform) prospective purchasers that they might very well have to shell out for a new battery in a couple of months?

To which I responded:

Grumpy_chap said:

There is a difference between a warranty ending and a part approaching an extended-period scheduled maintenance activity.  

There has been comment in the thread suggesting that a Dealer should tell a prospective purchaser that the extended-period maintenance item (timing belt) may need changing within a few months as per the service schedule. 
I am not sure that I agree the Dealer does have to advise a customer of something in the service schedule.
The timing belt, though, is a cost that will have to be planned for by the purchaser - known cost that the Dealer could advise the purchaser about.

The difference is the Tesla battery warranty expires at 8 years or 100k miles.  
The battery is not, so far as I am aware, listed as a maintenance item to replace the battery at 8 years / 100k miles.

SO, the battery on a Tesla is different from the timing belt on an ICE in that the timing belt is recommended to be changed but the battery is not.

[Deleted User]

I cannot be bothered to wade through 11 pages of posts but it is clearly stated on a number of car and legal advice websites that component ‘wear and tear’ is not covered by warranties or consumer protection legislation. I would have thought that DPFs; timing belts etc would firmly sit in the ‘wear and tear’ category provided that there was evidence of a current MOT and past servicings.

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

So if you were a Tesla dealer selling a 7 year and 10 month old Tesla that had done 96,000 miles, do you think the law would want you to advertise to (or otherwise inform) prospective purchasers that they might very well have to shell out for a new battery in a couple of months?

Or would you expect them to find that out themselves?

(I don't know but I assume a new battery for a Tesla is pretty costly and it might affect my decision whether or not to buy the car)

In reality it is only the same as buying a new car. Does dealer go through the warranty line by line, with all the exceptions? 
No they hand you the warranty book & you are expected to read it. Same as T/C on any purchase.

Should the dealer be telling people (new or used)? Would be nice, some do, but how many people simply turn off & not listen to people running through compliance statements? 

Certainly parting with large sums of cash, due diligence is 100% in my book a must, sadly many others do not.

This is where Consumer regs really need a section just for cars, split for new & used. As they are so far removed from the norm of most retail purchases due to general user usage & the problems that arise from that.

TBH. That is just the warranty. Which as we all know is over & above the consumer rights. 

born_again

If Which? are right then the dealer has to prove that it is more likely than not that the "problem" (or cause of the problem) was not present when the van was sold.   So the burden of proof (sometimes referred to as the "reverse burden of proof") is on the dealer within the first 6 months.  The buyer need prove nothing according to Which?

If that is correct, I'm not quite sure how the dealer could prove this satisfactorily?

My take on how a dealer could prove this is as I said.
ECU logs faults. So if this was not shown in the log, then it was not present at time. Add in warning light did not come in for 4 months. We are also talking about a consumable part here. Just like a air or oil filter.
DPF could have lasted a lot longer, or could have lasted a week. 

Should a dealer have to say on a 100K vehicle that parts might need replacing going forward? Common sense dictates that one.


This is no way getting at the OP. Just putting my take on this.
I get what you & other poster are saying. Just this is a real mess, by cover all regulations.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Dolor said:

I cannot be bothered to wade through 11 pages of posts but it is clearly stated on a number of car and legal advice websites that component ‘wear and tear’ is not covered by warranties or consumer protection legislation. I would have thought that DPFs; timing belts etc would firmly sit in the ‘wear and tear’ category provided that there was evidence of a current MOT and past servicings.

Personally I agree, the issue is one of material information.

It could be the same with the battery, if the warranty had expired perhaps that should be noted, if there is a period left perhaps that period should be defined. 

Manxman_in_exile said:

born_again said:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027326#Comment_80027326

Posted this before

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights-aAnMC5b0ZzJb

 You must consider the age, price, mileage, description applied and all other relevant circumstances when trying to decide whether the vehicle is of satisfactory quality.

I'm just re-reading this at the moment.

The link you give from Which? specifically says this:

"I've owned the car for less than six months

If you take the vehicle back within six months of purchase, the dealer should accept there was a problem when the vehicle was sold.

If the dealer doesn't accept there was a problem when the vehicle was sold, they'll have to prove this"  [my bold]

If Which? are right then the dealer has to prove that it is more likely than not that the "problem" (or cause of the problem) was not present when the van was sold.   So the burden of proof (sometimes referred to as the "reverse burden of proof") is on the dealer within the first 6 months.  The buyer need prove nothing according to Which?

If that is correct, I'm not quite sure how the dealer could prove this satisfactorily?

That guide starts by briefly saying what the CRA requires in order for the goods to conform to the contract.

It then uses fault/y as a substitute for does not conform and then in the part you've quoted swaps the word fault for problem.... 

The problem with all this guidance is that it's generic and only the courts can decide if information was material or not. 

I can only offer a personal opinion that if I was buying a used car and was told the belt was at the end of it's life or the warranty on an electric vehicle battery had run out I would expect to pay less for that car than one without such issues.

If the price is lower because of these things that means the dealer has made a specific decision and it's right the consumer be told of the reasoning.

If the price isn't lower I wouldn't have purchased it and so the omitted information would have altered my economic activity. 

You've questioned why 2 aspects of the CRA don't come up here often and I think that's because they aren't generally known and I think that applies to the understanding (and perhaps existence) of the unfair trading regs as well