Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

Manxman_in_exile

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  those are all fair points and I don't necessarily disagree with them.

The reason I find it difficult to say that I definitely agree with you is that it doesn't seem to be that straightforward when it comes to questions about used cars on these boards.

Very often we see queries about used car purchases that fail pretty badly within the first six months and I would expect people to be told "that's ok - if it happened within the first 6 months you can get a refund unless the seller can establish that it wasn't present when he sold it to you".  And I suspect that if that was the route that was followed then most dealers would find it very difficult to establish that.

But that advice is very rarely - if ever - given here about used cars.  More often the advice revolves around irrelevant question like "Could you expect the dealer to have known about that?"  To me, if the 6 months rule applied it would be completely irrelevant if the seller knew about it when they sold it or not.

Which leads me to wonder whether (a) the "6 months rule" doesn't apply to used cars or (b) people posting advice about used cars don't know about it (which you might have alluded to earlier in this or another thread).

I do, however, agree with your point that the dealer should be expected to have specialist knowledge about service intervals for things like replacing DPF filters and cam belts that the ordinary punter wouldn't be expected to know about.  I do think that the dealer should be expected to volunteer that sort of info when appropriate, and that it shouldn't be down to the consumer to ask when buying form a professional dealer.  We don't have caveat emptor any more.

I also wonder if in the case of this van, the dealer is aware that it's a consumer purchase and hasn't just assumed it's business.  Wonder if @Carlisle1967 has told him?

sevenhills

Manxman_in_exile said:

I do, however, agree with your point that the dealer should be expected to have specialist knowledge about service intervals for things like replacing DPF filters and cam belts that the ordinary punter wouldn't be expected to know about. 

Whether it's the battery, the timing belt or the DPF no one knows if it will last another three years or another three months.

born_again

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.   

Which the dealer can clearly argue & say it was not. As no warning light displayed. Which the OP has said did not come on till 4 months later.
If it was faulty before that, the warning light would have come on sooner.

One thing with warning lights & ECU, that log fault codes of just what & when it happened.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.   

Which the dealer can clearly argue & say it was not. As no warning light displayed. Which the OP has said did not come on till 4 months later.
If it was faulty before that, the warning light would have come on sooner.

One thing with warning lights & ECU, that log fault codes of just what & when it happened.

There’s that word “faulty” again  

It’s the same with a TV that fails after 18 months but worked fine until then, the underlying cause of the failure was always present, it merely didn’t manifest until a later point in time. 

The issue here is that, assuming it’s the original, the filter was indeed of satisfactory quality and durable because it lasted 100k miles.

In my opinion the OPs position needs to be one of misleading omissions under the unfair trading regs.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  those are all fair points and I don't necessarily disagree with them.

The reason I find it difficult to say that I definitely agree with you is that it doesn't seem to be that straightforward when it comes to questions about used cars on these boards.

Very often we see queries about used car purchases that fail pretty badly within the first six months and I would expect people to be told "that's ok - if it happened within the first 6 months you can get a refund unless the seller can establish that it wasn't present when he sold it to you".  And I suspect that if that was the route that was followed then most dealers would find it very difficult to establish that.

But that advice is very rarely - if ever - given here about used cars.  More often the advice revolves around irrelevant question like "Could you expect the dealer to have known about that?"  To me, if the 6 months rule applied it would be completely irrelevant if the seller knew about it when they sold it or not.

Which leads me to wonder whether (a) the "6 months rule" doesn't apply to used cars or (b) people posting advice about used cars don't know about it (which you might have alluded to earlier in this or another thread).

I think that was (19)(15)(b) but it's the same with this. 

Regarding the 6 months not applying, I can only offer up guidance:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/goods/used-car-sales#Consumerrights

The Act also states that if the consumer shows the vehicle is faulty in some way and, within the first six months of purchase, chooses a repair, replacement, price reduction or the final right to reject, it is automatically assumed that the fault was there at the time of delivery unless you can prove otherwise. This is called the 'reverse burden of proof'. After six months the consumer has to prove that the fault was there at the time of delivery. The consumer must also prove the fault was there at the time of delivery if they exercise the short-term right (30 days) to reject goods.

That guide is on used cars rather than the CRA in general  

Manxman_in_exile said:

I do, however, agree with your point that the dealer should be expected to have specialist knowledge about service intervals for things like replacing DPF filters and cam belts that the ordinary punter wouldn't be expected to know about.  I do think that the dealer should be expected to volunteer that sort of info when appropriate, and that it shouldn't be down to the consumer to ask when buying form a professional dealer.  We don't have caveat emptor any more.

I also wonder if in the case of this van, the dealer is aware that it's a consumer purchase and hasn't just assumed it's business.  Wonder if @Carlisle1967 has told him?

The unfair trading regs are designed to be very broad to protect consumers, the problem with this is they aren't specific which can have the opposite effect. 

Crossing threads here but the AA recommend you check the cam belt has been replaced according to the service schedule, if you should check it the regs seem to imply it should be given without you having to ask. 

What is classed as material information obviously varies but generally if the consumer needs to know I think it should be stated and with cars if there is a part that is going to cause the engine to completely fail and it's known that part has a lifespan, or can be inspected for it's condition, this information would appear to my mind to be material but I think ultimately it would come down to the decision of the court on the day.

With a lot of topics on here I doubt many at all get to court but when it comes to cars costing thousands it's perhaps more likely to end up in court yet frustratingly it's an area where it's much harder to give specific advice due to the broadness of the legislation. 

Carlisle1967

Citizens Advice have said I should defiantly pursue it as my consumer rights are law.

Trading standards info seems to agree.

I cannot see how anybody can prove whether anything was, or wasn't an underlying fault when purchased a couple of months before.

Seems such a grey area as to what rights if any you have on used cars within the first 6 months.

A lot of replies to this thread seems to seem to be that anything on a used vehicle is a consumable part so what do you expect?.

I can see the other side of the argument that things have to be replaced at some point, I knew about cam belt lifespans but not dpf's as the newest vehicle I have previously owned is from 2005 when I don't think they were so reliant on these at the time so this may have been my fault for not researching.

Below is from the Trading Standards website (not sure if you can post links) however a lot of the replies to this thread are along the lines of it was OK for 3 months so must have been fine.

 

powerful_Rogue

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  those are all fair points and I don't necessarily disagree with them.

The reason I find it difficult to say that I definitely agree with you is that it doesn't seem to be that straightforward when it comes to questions about used cars on these boards.

Very often we see queries about used car purchases that fail pretty badly within the first six months and I would expect people to be told "that's ok - if it happened within the first 6 months you can get a refund unless the seller can establish that it wasn't present when he sold it to you".  And I suspect that if that was the route that was followed then most dealers would find it very difficult to establish that.

But that advice is very rarely - if ever - given here about used cars.  More often the advice revolves around irrelevant question like "Could you expect the dealer to have known about that?"  To me, if the 6 months rule applied it would be completely irrelevant if the seller knew about it when they sold it or not.

Which leads me to wonder whether (a) the "6 months rule" doesn't apply to used cars or (b) people posting advice about used cars don't know about it (which you might have alluded to earlier in this or another thread).

I think that was (19)(15)(b) but it's the same with this. 

Regarding the 6 months not applying, I can only offer up guidance:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/en/quick-guides/goods/used-car-sales#Consumerrights

The Act also states that if the consumer shows the vehicle is faulty in some way and, within the first six months of purchase, chooses a repair, replacement, price reduction or the final right to reject, it is automatically assumed that the fault was there at the time of delivery unless you can prove otherwise. This is called the 'reverse burden of proof'. After six months the consumer has to prove that the fault was there at the time of delivery. The consumer must also prove the fault was there at the time of delivery if they exercise the short-term right (30 days) to reject goods.

That guide is on used cars rather than the CRA in general  

Manxman_in_exile said:

I do, however, agree with your point that the dealer should be expected to have specialist knowledge about service intervals for things like replacing DPF filters and cam belts that the ordinary punter wouldn't be expected to know about.  I do think that the dealer should be expected to volunteer that sort of info when appropriate, and that it shouldn't be down to the consumer to ask when buying form a professional dealer.  We don't have caveat emptor any more.

I also wonder if in the case of this van, the dealer is aware that it's a consumer purchase and hasn't just assumed it's business.  Wonder if @Carlisle1967 has told him?

The unfair trading regs are designed to be very broad to protect consumers, the problem with this is they aren't specific which can have the opposite effect. 

Crossing threads here but the AA recommend you check the cam belt has been replaced according to the service schedule, if you should check it the regs seem to imply it should be given without you having to ask. 

What is classed as material information obviously varies but generally if the consumer needs to know I think it should be stated and with cars if there is a part that is going to cause the engine to completely fail and it's known that part has a lifespan, or can be inspected for it's condition, this information would appear to my mind to be material but I think ultimately it would come down to the decision of the court on the day.

With a lot of topics on here I doubt many at all get to court but when it comes to cars costing thousands it's perhaps more likely to end up in court yet frustratingly it's an area where it's much harder to give specific advice due to the broadness of the legislation. 

There’s that word “faulty” again

Manxman_in_exile

sevenhills said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

I do, however, agree with your point that the dealer should be expected to have specialist knowledge about service intervals for things like replacing DPF filters and cam belts that the ordinary punter wouldn't be expected to know about. 

Whether it's the battery, the timing belt or the DPF no one knows if it will last another three years or another three months.

Two things:

First, I'm not a car geek so I've probably not chosen a good example by mentioning DPF filters in order to make a general point.

Let's assume we're just talking about a timing belt.  (That's because that has come up in a separate thread over the last couple of days).  Apparently (as I say I'm no expert and am just going by what others say...) Ford recommend that the timing belt or cam belt should be replaced at the earlier of either 10 years or c. 100,000 miles.  (Whatever the precise figures are is irrelevant - what is relevant is that the manufacturer has made a recommendation about replacement that a used car dealer ought to know about).

The argument that @the_lunatic_is_in_my_head is putting forward (and which I think I agree with) is that if a used car dealer is selling an 11 year old Ford or one with about 100,000 miles on the clock, then that dealer is obliged to point out to prospective purchasers what the manufacturer's recommendation is, and whether or not the timing/cam belt has actually been replaced.

That then puts the prospective purchaser in a better position when deciding whether to purchase or not, as he now has the same information about this particular aspect of the car as the dealer has.  (Remember - this is just a single example to make a general point).

There is no requirement on the consumer to do any research or "due diligence" on the matter, or even ask any questions about it.  Somebody buying a washing m/c isn't required by law to research anything in order to benefit from the rights given them by the CRA, and it's no different for used cars.

Second, if s19(14) of the CRA applies to used cars (I'm not 100% sure it does, but...) then it's entirely irrelevant whether the dealer, the buyer or anybody else knows or even suspects that a component will "fail" (or otherwise demonstrate that the car is not of satisfactory quality) in the first 6 months.  If a component "fails" within 6 months then the law deems it to have been present on the day of sale  unless the dealer can establish that it wasn't.  What the dealer actually knew or didn't know is not relevant, all that matters is whether he can esatblish that the fault wasn't present on the day of sale.

 NB1 - I've used the terms "fail" and "failure" as shorthand to describe a situation that occurs in the first 6 months which means the car no longer conforms to contract

NB2  -  I accept that concepts like "satisfactory quality" are largely subjective with used cars and what is satisfactory in respect of one used car may not be in another.  But where, for example, the manufacturer has given a clear objective recommendation that certain components should be replaced after a certain time or mileage, then the dealer - who is expected to have expert professional knowledge on the subject - is obliged to inform a prospective buyer.

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

Which the dealer can clearly argue & say it was not. As no warning light displayed. Which the OP has said did not come on till 4 months later.
If it was faulty before that, the warning light would have come on sooner.

One thing with warning lights & ECU, that log fault codes of just what & when it happened.

I know what you're trying to say, but isn't it defeated by

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

There’s that word “faulty” again  

It’s the same with a TV that fails after 18 months but worked fine until then, the underlying cause of the failure was always present, it merely didn’t manifest until a later point in time...

The "fault" doesn't need to have been present on the day of sale, only what caused it.

And basically, unless the seller can show that the "fault" has been caused by something the buyer has done since buying the car, then within 6 months it pretty much must have been there when it was sold.  I don't see how a dealer could "establish" otherwise    

Manxman_in_exile

@the_lunatic_is_in_my_head -  Hmmm.  Ok, Im coming more round to the view that s19(14) applies to used cars.  (Although I'm still not 100% convinced... )

But if that's the case, s19(14) almost becomes a statutory 6 months guarantee because it seems to me that it's asking a lot of the seller (whether it's a used car dealer or Currys selling a laptop) to establish (ie prove to at least 51% on the balance of probablity) that whatever caused the fault was not present at sale.

I think that must be enormously difficult to do unless the seller can prove either (a) that the buyer has misused the product and it was that misuse that caused the fault, or (b) the buyer otherwise broke it.

[Edit:  I agree that it's further complicated with used cars because of differing expectaions as to what constitutes "satisfactory quality" depending on age, mileage etc etc]

But maybe that's what the legislation was intended to do.

Regarding your points about the dealer being required to pass on material (or even just relevant) information, I agree.

A consumer needs to be able to make informed decisions.  And it's not up to them to inform themselves.