Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

Carlisle1967

Is the onus not on the dealer to prove it was not faulty rather than me prove it was faulty within the first 6 months?

powerful_Rogue

Carlisle1967 said:

Is the onus not on the dealer to prove it was not faulty rather than me prove it was faulty within the first 6 months?

It's very difficult to prove a negative. They could say it's worked for 3000 miles, it's your driving style that has caused it to fail.

Carlisle1967

Surely it’s still down to them to prove that within the first 6 months?

Wonka_2

Carlisle1967 said:

Surely it’s still down to them to prove that within the first 6 months?

All they're likely to need to show is that it was working correctly, with no warning lights, when you bought it - and your position that it worked perfectly for 3,000 miles supports that view.

Had there been errors/issues within days of purchase you may have had a different outcome as any 'fault' would have been visible

And just in case you should decide to change your story to fit the above the chances are that when they checked the vehicle they'll have a record from the ECU of what faults have been thrown up and when  

Manxman_in_exile

Carlisle1967 said:

Is the onus not on the dealer to prove it was not faulty rather than me prove it was faulty within the first 6 months?

Carlisle1967 said:

Surely it’s still down to them to prove that within the first 6 months?

You would think so under s19(14) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk)

But s19(15)(b) contains an exception to that:

"(15) Subsection (14) does not apply if—

(a) it is established that the goods did conform to the contract on that day, or

(b) its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract"

I have speculated previously (on this or another used car thread) that perhaps the six month presumption in s19(14) doesn't apply to used cars because its application would be incompatible with the "nature" of used cars.

The "nature" of used cars and why they keep failing all the time has been discussed ad infinitum recently on this and other used car threads.  It could be argued that unreliability is a characteristic of the "nature" of a used car.  [Edit:  Hence the 6 month presumption in favour of the consumer in s19(14) wouldn't apply to used cars]

tightauldgit

powerful_Rogue said:

Carlisle1967 said:

Is the onus not on the dealer to prove it was not faulty rather than me prove it was faulty within the first 6 months?

It's very difficult to prove a negative. They could say it's worked for 3000 miles, it's your driving style that has caused it to fail.

Difficult to prove, but if the law says the onus is on the dealer then that's the challenge they have to face. As I said I think you can make an argument both ways - the fact it didn't throw up a warning light or any problems when purchased shows it wasn't faulty at purchase, the fact it failed so soon after purchase suggests there was an issue with it at purchase.

So all you are really left with is a subjective assessment on whether you think a DPF failing within 6 months is reasonable and jut one of those things you need to be aware of with used cars or whether it's more serious than that. 

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

For satisfactory quality 

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

Age and milage often lends itself to price but a 10 year old car with 100k on the clock described as "1 owner, top condition, filofax of service and repair history" is going to have a higher bar for satisfactory quality than a 5 year old car with 50k on the clock described as "3 owners, no history, shabby condition". 

I don't know anything about the problem OP has so can't really offer any thoughts on whether the van is of satisfactory quality or not. 

I'm really uncertain about that.

I understand the point you are making, but I'm not 100% convinced that the 10 yr old 100k one-owner car would have a higher bar to cross than the 5 yr old 50k multi-owner car.

Too difficult...

Too subjective regarding expectations...

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

Wonka_2 said:

born_again said:

One thing here. Is OP is talking about DPF filter, now this may have been on the verge of being to the point of wanting either a cemical clean, or replacing when bought. Very hard to tell.

Then factor in the type of drivng OP may be doing. Lots of short trips. It has tipped it over the edge.

Is this a faulty car? When you are talking a consumable part (allbeit a expensive one) Should something like this has to be excluded from the 6 month rule, or pretty much every diesel car that is sold 2nd hand is potentially going to have this issue.

Kind of drops into the same as, well my tyre or brakes have worn out within 6 months of purchase.

You are not buying new, so have to temper expertations. As should the consumer regulations. On what to expect.

Just like the 3 month warranty would no doubt have a exclusion for the DPF due to being a consumable. Had it of happened in the 1st 3 months.

And this is exactly it - in the majority of cases the DPF isn't something where the condition can be checked. I've not had a diesel for 3 years but my last one suffered with the DPF clogging due to my driving at the time - Jaguar's software could see whether the regen's were happening as planned or whether there was a fault which allowed things to change before it became unserviceable.

In the OP's case irrespective of the cost of the van/that it was purchased from main dealer the DPF is a serviceable item with a lifespan - not like tyres/brakes where this can be measured - but a lifespan nonetheless and therefore impractical to suggest it automatically qualifies for 6mths 'warranty' (or is actually covered under any warranty anyway)

So the question back again to @Carlisle1967 - would the DPF failure have been covered under the warranty if it had failed within the 3 month period ?

And as a potential glimmer of hope - it's not unknown for people to blank out the warning lights meaning buyers don't see if there's a DPF/EML warning - what warning lights have you seen over the period of use and if any, have you followed the instructions in the manual to clear them ?

The thing about the consumer law thoughWonka_2 said:

born_again said:

One thing here. Is OP is talking about DPF filter, now this may have been on the verge of being to the point of wanting either a cemical clean, or replacing when bought. Very hard to tell.

Then factor in the type of drivng OP may be doing. Lots of short trips. It has tipped it over the edge.

Is this a faulty car? When you are talking a consumable part (allbeit a expensive one) Should something like this has to be excluded from the 6 month rule, or pretty much every diesel car that is sold 2nd hand is potentially going to have this issue.

Kind of drops into the same as, well my tyre or brakes have worn out within 6 months of purchase.

You are not buying new, so have to temper expertations. As should the consumer regulations. On what to expect.

Just like the 3 month warranty would no doubt have a exclusion for the DPF due to being a consumable. Had it of happened in the 1st 3 months.

And this is exactly it - in the majority of cases the DPF isn't something where the condition can be checked. I've not had a diesel for 3 years but my last one suffered with the DPF clogging due to my driving at the time - Jaguar's software could see whether the regen's were happening as planned or whether there was a fault which allowed things to change before it became unserviceable.

In the OP's case irrespective of the cost of the van/that it was purchased from main dealer the DPF is a serviceable item with a lifespan - not like tyres/brakes where this can be measured - but a lifespan nonetheless and therefore impractical to suggest it automatically qualifies for 6mths 'warranty' (or is actually covered under any warranty anyway)

So the question back again to @Carlisle1967 - would the DPF failure have been covered under the warranty if it had failed within the 3 month period ?

And as a potential glimmer of hope - it's not unknown for people to blank out the warning lights meaning buyers don't see if there's a DPF/EML warning - what warning lights have you seen over the period of use and if any, have you followed the instructions in the manual to clear them ?

 The thing about the consumer law though is the way it's worded it's not so much that you get a 6 month warranty on things but more that if something goes wrong within 6 months it's assumed the problem was there when you bought it unless the seller can show otherwise. 

So if it had a faulty DPF on the day it was sold would the buyer be entitled to a repair or a refund? I believe so. So if the DPF fails within 6 months it's up to the seller to show that it's most likely something that has occurred since and wasn't present on Day 1...

Yes.  If s19(14) applies then there is a rebuttable presumption that the fault was present on the day of purchase, unless it can be "established that the goods did conform to contract on that day...".  See s19(15)(a).

Presumably that means that the fault must be taken as having been present on the day of purchase, unless the seller can actually prove otherwise (on the balance of probabilities).  

Now I don't really understand how a seller could reasonably satisfy that burden five months down the road, and I don't think I've ever seen anybody mention it in any used car threads on here before

Which is what leads me to think that what I'm calling the six months rule must not apply for the other reason in s19(15) which is that to apply the six months rule would not be compatible with what I will call the inherently "unreliable" nature of used cars.  See s19(15)(b).

tightauldgit said:

I think you can make an argument both ways on that one to be honest so I really don't know what way a court would swing.

I agree.   

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Carlisle1967 said:

Is the onus not on the dealer to prove it was not faulty rather than me prove it was faulty within the first 6 months?

Hello OP

The word "faulty" is pretty much meaningless when it comes to consumer rights  

What you've said is basically correct but what you are looking at is satisfactory quality and durability which becomes subjective with second hand goods and even more so with cars. 

Really the dealer should inspect the van, establish the problem and either have a good argument for why the issue that's occurred has either been caused by you or is "one of those things" that comes with buying a second hand vehicle and that the dealer couldn't have reasonably of known that part was going to fail.

Google says a DPF filer should last around 100k miles and you've said the van has done 100k miles. My argument, which most disagree with, is that a dealer should be aware of the lifespan of certain parts of the car, know from the service history that it has and hasn't been replaced (or assume it hasn't if not mentioned) and advise the consumer of this.

I think part of your problem is vans are not regularly consumer purchases, that's not to say yours wasn't (I don't remember the details on that) but the dealer may be taking the view with vans they have to offer less than they would on a car because they'd expect the customer not to be a consumer (not that this excuses them, it's their job to establish what you are and decline custom if they don't wish to deal with consumers). 

It's a very complicated issue and the best you are likely to get without the dealer volunteering to help is sending a letter before action and then small claims for the cost of repair. 

If you have the filter changed and get something in writing from the place that changes it to support your position that would be ideal. 

In terms of the finer points of the legislation (both the Consumer Rights Act and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations) you may wish to seek proper legal advice, you might be able to get a free half hour chat to see if you have any chance of winning in small claims with this issue.

The person I would most trust to guide you on this forum with regards to your rights in this situation is @unholyangel but she doesn't post very often. 

sheramber

Carlisle1967 said:

Van has been used for carboots, taking my motorcross bikes to tracks and as a general runaround.
Have a sign written van provided by the company I am working for as an electrician on council contracts.

Are these short journeys where the soot doesn't get burned off but builds up.