Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

Grumpy_chap

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

So why does anybody ever buy a brand new car?

Why don't we all buy £500 20yo bangers and then get a refund when it inevitably breaks in the first 6 months? I can use the £500 refund to buy another 20yo banger. Rinse. Repeat. Ad Infinitum.

tightauldgit

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027343#Comment_80027343

I think I made this very same point on another thread yesterday - it doesn't make sense on the face of it but it does seem to be what the consumer law actually says is the case. I don't know if there's any case law around it which would shed more light on what courts think.

Carlisle1967

I brought it from a car dealership as I thought you had a bit more comeback if you get problems with it, I thought that was one of the reasons that they cost more from those places than private sales if not why buy from them at a premium?.

I can appreciate that things don't last forever, but for £14,500 I would expect a bit more than 4 months before having to pay out thousands to repair it as surley thats a bit more than wear and tear?

born_again

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.

tightauldgit

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027784#Comment_80027784

I'm getting confused by all these similar threads about cars but I think that agrees with my point that there is very little specific detail about what is meant by satisfactory quality for a used car. I must consider the age price mileage and description … OK… but that's on the face of it a completely subjective requirement, so what tests are a court going to apply to determine the outcome? It's also not wording I could find in the legislation itself when I looked (though I could easily have missed something i admit)

born_again

@tightauldgit

Agree it's a nightmare. But in reality, you can not expect a 10 year old car to be judged/treated in the same way as a new car. As far as your rights go. Given the use & abuse a old car will have suffered & a very uncertain knowledge of it's service history.

Manxman_in_exile

@tightauldgit ; @Grumpy_chap ; @born_again

I agree that how CRA 2015 applies to used cars of whatever age is confusing and a bit of a nightmare.

It's not clear to me how the "faults that develop within 6 months MUST be taken to have been present on the date of sale unless the seller demonstrates otherwise" provision can be reconciled with the "what do you expect from a 10 year old banger costing £500 (or whatever)" point of view.

I steer clear of used car threads unless it's obvious - eg not as described

Carlisle1967

The dealer did a Major service on the van prior to me taking it and has stamped the book stating that alongside the previous main dealer services carried out by Renault.

States on their website that the exhaust system is checked with this, not sure if they could tell anything from that?

Grumpy_chap

It's not clear to me how the "faults that develop within 6 months MUST be taken to have been present on the date of sale unless the seller demonstrates otherwise" provision can be reconciled with the "what do you expect from a 10 year old banger costing £500 (or whatever)" point of view.

That six month thing is also very complex in the case of a used car as what is reasonable for a pre-reg <6 month old car or 20yo banger is vastly different. In each case, it is also necessary to balance wear and tear.

Consider an extreme case. Buy 6 month old car. In the next 6 months, cover 20k miles. The tyre blows out. Some would seem to suggest that must have been a fault present at the time of sale and the car can be rejected.

I would suggest that point of view is clearly nonsense.

The trouble is, people saying "just reject the car - you are within 6 months - not important the car is 20 yo" are giving people an expectation that may not be correct.

tightauldgit

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027903#Comment_80027903

I had a think about this yesterday and the best I could come up with is that the specific wording of the legislation is important because in order for any of the 6 month thing to apply then the goods have to be non-compliant - which in this case would mean not of satisfactory quality.

The argument against the 6 month rule would be that even though a fault may arise, that wouldn't render the vehicle not of satisfactory quality because you have to take into account the age and mileage of the car. So some faults might still be satisfactory?

Which only really brings us back to a totally subjective judgement on every case, though.

Most consumer sites talking about used cars say something like 'be careful buying a car because if something goes wrong it can be a nightmare trying to get anything back from the dealer' which would at least suggest a hardline reading of the CRA in the consumer's favour isn't standard, but I'm not sure if that's based on case law or the fact that nobody seems to go to court over these things.