Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

powerful_Rogue said:

There’s that word “faulty” again

Indeed, it should say "does not conform to the contract" but alas I didn't write that paragraph. 

One of the problems with guidance is it's often written in every day language that is easier to understand which can have the unfortunate downside of sometimes being misunderstood.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

@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.

When you tie together the CRA, the cancellation and information regs and the unfair trading regs rather than the trader being liable for everything for 6 months it's more a case of placing the responsibility on the trader of reasonably checking the goods for sale and noting any defects (or if they wish repairing them before sale).  

Consumer rights are about confidence and buying a second hand car where you know the timing belt or DPF filter won't shortly fail obviously inspires confidence.

Even if you take something like brakes, they would be classed as a consumable part, however if the brakes are shot the car is not roadworthy, so can't be sold, so the trader has to check them. If they check them and find they are low they should inform the consumer of this because they knew it to be so. You'll get an MOT advisory if your pads are low so I'm assuming there is a reputable measure of what low is.

The issue is when someone drives the car excessively wearing out the pads quicker than normal driving should but if the trader can show they checked the brakes and they weren't low (on the balance of probability) then that problem is now on the consumer. 

Obviously there is some "real world" considerations here, dodgy car dealers maybe don't care and just set up new companies if they get sued, honest dealers probably work with customers to resolve problems that won't occur that often because they sell quality cars and ultimately there is the issue that going to small claims is probably daunting for the average person so they suffer small repair bills, the problems occur when you have out the box stuff with high repair costs like this and the other timing belt thread. 

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

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    

The problem is... and the sloppy wording of some of those advice sites isn't helping... is that the CRA doesn't say if an item is faulty within 6 months then the fault is presumed to have been there on Day 1. It says: 

"For the purposes of subsections (3)(b) and (c) and (4), goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day."

But the problem is that non-conformance due to satisfactory quality is an ill-defined apparently subjective judgement for used vehicles - is a DPF that's gone on a 100,000 mile 10 year old van of satisfactory quality? If it is then it doesn't matter when it happens because there's no non-conformance. (and that's just an example, I can't remember the specific details of the OP's van)

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

is a DPF that's gone on a 100,000 mile 10 year old van of satisfactory quality?

Indeed it is as the parts lasted as long as they should have. I don't think the satisfactory quality perspective applies to the OP here or the other timing belt thread (the topic has tuned a bit to some general conversation about rights when buying 2nd hand cars). 

The issue is material information, or a lack of. 

Edited to add: There can be a bit of a cross over, hypothetically if the trader said something like "perfect runner, needs nothing doing" but the filter or belt was at the end of it's life then the vehicle wouldn't conform to the contract, however that would be under the requirement for goods to be as described rather than satisfactory quality. 

sevenhills

Carlisle1967 said:

Done 100k
Full service by dealer when I got it so 3000 miles ago and full service history from Renault.
Engine failure hazard came up once before but code displayed was something to do with anti pollution system so had a dpf clean and since then engine failure hazard didn’t return but check anti pollution system keeps coming back.

It hasn't had a full service if parts were recommended to be changed and they were not.

born_again

Maybe "Faulty" is the wrong word to use here.🤷‍♀️👍

Just like the brake pad waring light, which tells you they have reached the end of their life. With a DPF, this is just the same. 


https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/emissions/diesel-particulate-filters/#:~:text=A diesel particulate filter on,that can actually block filters.

A diesel particulate filter on a poorly serviced car may fail sooner than a well maintained one, generally, they should last for at least 100,000 miles. It's important you use the right type of oil as well – some oils contain additives that can actually block filters.

So given the mileage on the van. It has got to the point of probably needing replacing.

Carlisle1967

So born_again its up to the buyer to find out when all the components on a vehicle need to be replaced and make a informed decision based on the mileage after you have done you're homework?
Again why bother paying extra to buy used vehicles from dealers instead of just buying private, as the bar seems to be as long as they last 30 days then it wasn't faulty when sold?
What on a used vehicle could you prove was faulty on day of purchase that only arises after a couple of months? Nothing. and again you can just say that they have reached the end of their life.
So what is the point of the consumer rights regarding used vehicles after 30 days?

born_again

Carlisle1967 said:

So born_again its up to the buyer to find out when all the components on a vehicle need to be replaced and make a informed decision based on the mileage after you have done you're homework?
Again why bother paying extra to buy used vehicles from dealers instead of just buying private, as the bar seems to be as long as they last 30 days then it wasn't faulty when sold?
What on a used vehicle could you prove was faulty on day of purchase that only arises after a couple of months? Nothing. and again you can just say that they have reached the end of their life.
So what is the point of the consumer rights regarding used vehicles after 30 days?

In many ways YES. Homework will also include looking at how long parts such as this will last, especially when van is already done 100K.
As per this, you have found that even buying from a dealer is not a 100% protection for failures down the line.

You have to temper expectations 🤷‍♀️Especially when buying a van, that could well have been used & abused by the drivers & not fully serviced as required by the owners.

You do have rights after 30 days. Just you have to prove your case. Which TBH in this case is not going to be easy. 

I'm not pro dealer here, just tempering expectations. You could get the proof & go to court, but then dealer simply folds & you get nothing.


Just with a 100K 4 year old van. You have to expect that some parts will require replacing.

Yes, it's not nice that the DPF has failed after 4 months, sadly very common with diesel's . But again Renault £3K price.. A quick look online finds prices way below that.

https://www.autodoc.co.uk/car-parts/soot-particle-filter-10418/renault/trafic/year-2019
£300 to £400.

Grumpy_chap

Carlisle1967 said:

So born_again its up to the buyer to find out when all the components on a vehicle need to be replaced and make a informed decision based on the mileage after you have done you're homework?

This could very well be the case.
In fact, it could even be worse than that.

Say, I go out and buy a vehicle with 95k miles and 4 yo.
It is common for vehicles to require a cam belt at anything in the range of 80 - 120k miles (or 8 - 10 years).  
As a consumer, unless the supplier specifically said the cam belt had been changed, I would assume it had not.
Let's assume the specific 4 yo vehicle I purchased had 95k miles and the manufacturer's recommendation is to exchange at 100k miles. 
No reason that would have been done before purchase as it is not yet at the manufacturer's recommended interval.
Having purchased the vehicle, I may be doing 20k miles per year, so that would be 10k in the first 6 month, taking the mileage to 105k. 
As the owner, it is my responsibility to arrange for the cam belt change as per the manufacturer's recommendations, i.e. at 3 months 5k miles after purchase.
If I fail to follow that manufacturer's recommendation, is that the Dealer's liability?

This, then, also connects to those suggesting the Dealer should point everything out that might need doing? 
Where would the Dealer stop in what they have to say?  
It is, after all, a used vehicle - if the purchaser wanted a brand new vehicle with a cam belt that lasts 10 years or 100k miles from point of purchase, the purchasers needs to purchase a brand new vehicle.  The saving in purchase cost is off-set against the fact that recommended maintenance costs will be higher on the older vehicle.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlisle1967 said:

So born_again its up to the buyer to find out when all the components on a vehicle need to be replaced and make a informed decision based on the mileage after you have done you're homework?

This could very well be the case.
In fact, it could even be worse than that.

Say, I go out and buy a vehicle with 95k miles and 4 yo.
It is common for vehicles to require a cam belt at anything in the range of 80 - 120k miles (or 8 - 10 years).  
As a consumer, unless the supplier specifically said the cam belt had been changed, I would assume it had not.
Let's assume the specific 4 yo vehicle I purchased had 95k miles and the manufacturer's recommendation is to exchange at 100k miles. 
No reason that would have been done before purchase as it is not yet at the manufacturer's recommended interval.
Having purchased the vehicle, I may be doing 20k miles per year, so that would be 10k in the first 6 month, taking the mileage to 105k. 
As the owner, it is my responsibility to arrange for the cam belt change as per the manufacturer's recommendations, i.e. at 3 months 5k miles after purchase.
If I fail to follow that manufacturer's recommendation, is that the Dealer's liability?

This, then, also connects to those suggesting the Dealer should point everything out that might need doing? 
Where would the Dealer stop in what they have to say?  
It is, after all, a used vehicle - if the purchaser wanted a brand new vehicle with a cam belt that lasts 10 years or 100k miles from point of purchase, the purchasers needs to purchase a brand new vehicle.  The saving in purchase cost is off-set against the fact that recommended maintenance costs will be higher on the older vehicle.

Which aspect of the legislation, any guidance or court decisions are you relying on to place the burden upon the consumer to ask questions or state that a cam belt nearing the end of it's life is not material information? 

I understand your view from a "real world" situation and certainly think it's wise to do your research (if you want something done properly and all that) but it's not clear from your post how what you've said relates to the legislation (mainly the unfair trading regs) in any way?