Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

Manxman_in_exile

[The OP asked yesterday where they stood and I said I'd read through the thread again and try to summarise all the points made.  Apologies for the length...]

@Carlisle1967 - You are unhappy at paying £14500 for a van that has done 100k miles, which has failed within 4 months, and might cost a further £3.5k to put right.

I know absolutely nothing about the filters in question, but it would seem from what others have posted that they are generally considered good up to about 100k, but after that they are more likely to fail.  You were not aware of this when you bought the van, and if you had had been aware you would have given more consideration to whether or not to buy it.

The dealer you bought from is basically saying it’s not their problem but have offered to investigate but you will have to pay for that investigation.  You are reluctant to let them do so.

Assuming that’s where you’re at, then before you even start thinking of taking action against the selling dealer you really ought to let them have a look at the van and give them an opportunity to repair it.  (@Aylesbury_Duck suggested you needed to let the selling dealer investigate in some of the first responses to this thread). 

Who knows - they might either (a) agree with you and fix it or (b) make some sort of offer that you are satisfied with.  If they accept that there is an issue and try to fix it but fail, then you can look at claiming a refund. 

However, assuming that letting the seller investigate the problem gets you nowhere, you’ll have to decide between just accepting it as “one of those things” and paying to get it fixed yourself, or suing the seller.

If you feel strongly enough to sue the seller it would seem that you might have two possible grounds for action.

First, you could try arguing that the van does not conform to contract in some way under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in that, for example, it (or its DPF) were not of satisfactory quality or were not as described.  And, that because the DPF issue became apparent within 6 months of purchase, the “reverse” burden of proof is on the dealer to prove that the issue (or underlying “cause” of the issue) was not present at sale rather than on you to prove that it was present.

I’m not wholly convinced that this “reverse” burden of proof within the first 6 months applies to used cars, but Which? appears to think it does and you have said that CAB have told you it does, so let’s assume it does.

The problem you might have with this approach is the one highlighted by several posters.  ie is the problem suffered by your van a problem such that the van no longer conforms to contract, or is it just "normal wear and tear" and one of those things that has to be expected from a four year old van that’s done 100k miles?  Having spent £14500 on it just a little over 3 months ago you think you are entitled to expect more from it than that...

It's only my personal opinion, but you could try arguing that if (a) the filter has an expected life of 100k miles, and (b) the van had done about 100k miles when you bought it, then (c) the filter was clearly approaching the end of its life, and (d) if that was not reflected in the price, then (e) the filter (and by extension the van) was not of satisfactory quality and/or durability.

But other posters will say – quite reasonably – that that view is wrong.  It's very subjective and you will need to make your own mind up.

The second ground you might have would be under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs.  I won’t go into it in detail here (you can read the_lunatic_is_in_my_head’s earlier posts) but basically it makes it a criminal offence for a dealer to mislead you by NOT giving you information about a car that might have led you to make a different transactional decision if you had had that information.  Deciding whether or not to buy a car is a transactional decision.  If you would not have bought the car if you had known that the DPF was more likely to fail after about 100k miles, then you might be able to argue a case under the regs.

You can’t do anything about the criminal offence aspect of it, but the regs do apparently give you, as a consumer, certain civil remedies against the dealer.  You might have a right to unwind the contract, or to get a discount, or to claim damages.

But the above are all just opinions about how the law might apply.  As several posters have already said, this is a complicated area, and nobody here really knows what the answer is.

It’s already been suggested that you see if you can get 30 minutes free legal advice from a solicitor.  I believe CAB might be able to give you a list of solicitors who provide such a service.  Or you can ask CAB again for advice.

I wasn’t joking when I suggested earlier getting legal advice from Which?  The number they give is  0117 456 6020.  I think you have to be a subscriber to Which? before you can use the service and I think you may have to pay an additional fee to use it, but nothing to stop you calling and asking.

I appreciate you also have the additional practical consideration of getting the van back on the road ASAP and not having to worry about the hassle of suing the dealer.

Hope that all helps make things a little less confusing(?)

If you do end up suing the dealer, remember cases can be lost as well as won…

born_again

^^^
Great summing up.👍
I am 100% in agreement. 

If this is the route the Op takes. Please come back & advise. As we love to know the outcomes. As it always helps to have cases to refer back to. 👍

Manxman_in_exile

Just to add a couple of things to my earlier post today.

1.  Although both Consumer protection from unfair trading | Business Companion and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - Which? both say that the regulations give a consumer the civil remedies I referred to above (unwind contract or discount or damages) I can't find where the regulations actually say that(?)

But if Which? says it I assume it's true?

2.  The omission by the dealer needs to be a "material" omission in that the information omitted must be something that would be likely to affect the consumer's decision whether or not to buy.

My own view (and it's just my view, not a statement of law) would be that if I were considering spending £14k on a van I would want to know if it was very close to reaching the mileage where the DPF might be expected to fail.  Especially if it was something I wouldn't otherwise be aware of and if it might cost a significant amount to replace.

tedted

i have cleaned or had to replace dpf mostly due to driving to slow,one had only done 45000 miles but the owner never weant above fourty mph even when the warning came up on the dash.its easy to check how blocked a dpf is and then you can inform the customer what is the best course of  action

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

Just to add a couple of things to my earlier post today.

1.  Although both Consumer protection from unfair trading | Business Companion and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - Which? both say that the regulations give a consumer the civil remedies I referred to above (unwind contract or discount or damages) I can't find where the regulations actually say that(?)

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

If the URL on the legislation site has "made" at the end of it I believe it shows the regs as originally written, the part about redress was added in 2014, current regs here  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Just to add a couple of things to my earlier post today.

1.  Although both Consumer protection from unfair trading | Business Companion and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 - Which? both say that the regulations give a consumer the civil remedies I referred to above (unwind contract or discount or damages) I can't find where the regulations actually say that(?)

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

If the URL on the legislation site has "made" at the end of it I believe it shows the regs as originally written, the part about redress was added in 2014, current regs here  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/1277/contents

Huh!

I checked that umpteen times to try to ensure I was looking at the most up-to-date revised version.

Obviously I wasn't!

Thanks

[Deleted User]

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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  

Try this link:

https://www.whatcar.com/news/your-legal-rights-if-something-goes-wrong-with-your-car/n3307

What’s not covered by the law?

Dealers are not required to rectify any component that fails due to ‘fair wear and tear’, such as tyres or brake discs that wear out due to normal use.

The symptoms of a blocked DPF at the time of purchase would be:

• DPF warning light on dashboard.
• Engine Low on power.
• Engine cannot rev to high RPMS.
• Black smoke from exhaust upon acceleration.
• Odour of diesel fuel into the cabin.
• Reduced fuel economy.

Did the purchaser note any of these symptoms at the time of purchase, and did he discuss them with the seller?

Manxman_in_exile

But doesn't that Whatcar link only deal with rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015? 

I think this may have moved on from whether or not it's just a wear and tear question, and has also become a question of whether or not the dealer has complied with their legal obligations under The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.  (ie have they provided to the buyer all the material information that they should have done under those regs)

I think those regs originally only covered criminal offences which were not enforced particularly strictly by Trading Standards.  AIUI they've been amended to give consumer's additional protection over and above that offered by the CRA.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (legislation.gov.uk)

sevenhills

tedted said:

i have cleaned or had to replace dpf mostly due to driving to slow,one had only done 45000 miles but the owner never weant above fourty mph even when the warning came up on the dash.its easy to check how blocked a dpf is and then you can inform the customer what is the best course of  action

I do mostly short journeys in my 112,000 mile diesel Zafira, I have had it 3+ years.
It's only ever done a regeneration once, around 5,000 miles ago.
Never heard anyone say it's easy to know how 'full' they are. How do you do that?
Perhaps the OPs DPF is salvageable.

tedted

they have a pressure sensor before and after the dpf you look at these readings and if its over 140 mbars its getting blocked and the ecu will not allow a regen