Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

born_again

This is where this whole consumer rights have not been very well thought out in terms of certain purchases. Just taken a overall view & applied it to everything.

Until something like this is fully tested in court, then I guess we can pass comments either way until the cows come home. Which does not help or answer the OP's question.

Consumer rights are just a basic general cover all, with far to many fully thought out parts.

 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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 am not relying on any part of the legislation.
I am relying on the fact that the replacement schedule of the cam belt is public domain information.
The age and mileage of the car being purchased is stated by the Dealer and can be assessed by the purchaser against that public domain information.

There cannot possibly be a requirement for the Dealer to mention everything that is mentioned in the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and to say at the time of the sale that it may need to be done.  The alternative would be some very long conversations...

I can just imagine the thread where someone says I saw a 3 1/2 yo car on line and called the Dealer to make an appointment to go and see it.  I was three hours on the phone where the dealer went through a whole load of stuff about brake fluid every two years, so will be required in another 6 months, cam belt in another 60k miles or 7 years, check the lights daily, check the water level, check the oil, the car does not include a pump for checking the tyre air pressure, the tyre tread depth can wear down and needs to be checked regularly....   It sounds like a right old heap of rubbish so I decided not to see the car, but I used up all that time and I have no minutes left in my monthly call plan.  Who will cover the costs now of me being out of minutes for the remainder of the month?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

born_again said:

This is where this whole consumer rights have not been very well thought out in terms of certain purchases. Just taken a overall view & applied it to everything.

Until something like this is fully tested in court, then I guess we can pass comments either way until the cows come home. Which does not help or answer the OP's question.

Consumer rights are just a basic general cover all, with far to many fully thought out parts.

 

I understand you are saying, in general, this is how the real world works and consumer rights doesn't cover it all but the flip side to this is, this is how consumer rights work and the real world doesn't abide by it all. 

Tradespeople not giving required information on job details, prices, the right to cancel
Couriers not paying out for parcels unless they are insured
Car dealers expecting you to ask the questions rather than volunteer the information. 

Such things are commonly accepted and 99% of the time it isn't an issue (probably why it becomes accepted) but that doesn't automatically work in reverse meaning that the 99% methods or understandings apply to the 1%.

It will cost the OP a stamp to send a letter before action, the dealer might offer to cover or split the cost faced with a customer stating how they believe the legislation supports their position, they might not leaving the OP with the difficult choice of whether to invest in smalls claims but if they are told opinion or how it usually works they may give up missing an opportunity to avoid suffering a loss that they may have the right to. 

And there's nothing wrong with explaining what usually happens or giving an opinion, nothing at all, but IMHO it should come with that mention that it isn't fact, equally I've told the OP what I think the legislation entitles them to but recommended they seek professional advice before relying on it as fact if going down the legal avenue. 

Grumpy_chap said:

I can just imagine the thread where someone says I saw a 3 1/2 yo car on line and called the Dealer to make an appointment to go and see it.  I was three hours on the phone where the dealer went through a whole load of stuff about brake fluid every two years, so will be required in another 6 months, cam belt in another 60k miles or 7 years, check the lights daily, check the water level, check the oil, the car does not include a pump for checking the tyre air pressure, the tyre tread depth can wear down and needs to be checked regularly....   It sounds like a right old heap of rubbish so I decided not to see the car, but I used up all that time and I have no minutes left in my monthly call plan.  Who will cover the costs now of me being out of minutes for the remainder of the month?

But where have I suggested a car dealer has to do all that? 

All I've said it were there is something that needs addressing imminently it should be brought to the consumer's attention. 

Grumpy_chap said:

I am not relying on any part of the legislation.
I am relying on the fact that the replacement schedule of the cam belt is public domain information.
The age and mileage of the car being purchased is stated by the Dealer and can be assessed by the purchaser against that public domain information.

And if it's public domain then the dealer must know so why not say (where it's an imminent problem)? Oh it would harm the chances of getting a sale.... 

That's why the legislation requires material information to be given, to protect consumers from the trader leaving out what would affect the economic behaviour of the average consumer. 

I certainly think the average car buyer would think twice if the belt or this filter needs doing very shortly and they'd either walk away or look to get a better price. 

Carlisle1967

Well at least now I know that a modern diesel with nearly 100k on the clock will need a pretty expensive part replacing sooner rather than later, I wasn't really aware of this before I purchased it so this may be my fault.

This is why I currently wouldn't buy a second hand EV even though I like the idea, as the average battery replacement age probably make them worthless when you try to get rid of them due to the massive costs of imminently replacing the battery.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I can just imagine the thread where someone says I saw a 3 1/2 yo car on line and called the Dealer to make an appointment to go and see it.  I was three hours on the phone where the dealer went through a whole load of stuff about brake fluid every two years, so will be required in another 6 months, cam belt in another 60k miles or 7 years, check the lights daily, check the water level, check the oil, the car does not include a pump for checking the tyre air pressure, the tyre tread depth can wear down and needs to be checked regularly....   It sounds like a right old heap of rubbish so I decided not to see the car, but I used up all that time and I have no minutes left in my monthly call plan.  Who will cover the costs now of me being out of minutes for the remainder of the month?

But where have I suggested a car dealer has to do all that? 

Here:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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.

My wife's car has a regular service schedule, 12 months or 12.5k miles.
There are regular checks advised, every 250 miles.
It also has a section for "extended period maintenance" which includes:

• Every 2 years = drain and renew brake fluid and coolant
• Every 3 years = spark plugs and air filter
• Every 10 years = timing belt and auxiliary drive belt

If someone is buying this car at 9.5 years old, which of the above would you expect the Dealer to bring to the purchaser's attention?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I can just imagine the thread where someone says I saw a 3 1/2 yo car on line and called the Dealer to make an appointment to go and see it.  I was three hours on the phone where the dealer went through a whole load of stuff about brake fluid every two years, so will be required in another 6 months, cam belt in another 60k miles or 7 years, check the lights daily, check the water level, check the oil, the car does not include a pump for checking the tyre air pressure, the tyre tread depth can wear down and needs to be checked regularly....   It sounds like a right old heap of rubbish so I decided not to see the car, but I used up all that time and I have no minutes left in my monthly call plan.  Who will cover the costs now of me being out of minutes for the remainder of the month?

But where have I suggested a car dealer has to do all that? 

Here:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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.

My wife's car has a regular service schedule, 12 months or 12.5k miles.
There are regular checks advised, every 250 miles.
It also has a section for "extended period maintenance" which includes:

• Every 2 years = drain and renew brake fluid and coolant
• Every 3 years = spark plugs and air filter
• Every 10 years = timing belt and auxiliary drive belt

If someone is buying this car at 9.5 years old, which of the above would you expect the Dealer to bring to the purchaser's attention?

So three things as opposed to the general maintenance list you posted earlier? 

I would certainly expect the timing belt and auxiliary drive belt to be mentioned.

I'm not a car person so can't really answer the other two without knowing the consequences of not getting them done. If the consequences are serious then yes it should be mentioned. 

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I would certainly expect the timing belt and auxiliary drive belt to be mentioned.

Why only that one?

What about the general internet consensus that the timing belt on this model needs changing at 8 years, 62.5k miles max?
OR, is reference to the manufacturer's recommendation sufficient?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I'm not a car person so can't really answer the other two without knowing the consequences of not getting them done. If the consequences are serious then yes it should be mentioned. 

Well, consequences of the timing belt failing are a new engine.
That's only money, though.

I assume the consequences of the brake fluid not being changed could be the failure of the braking system.
Failed brakes could mean injury or death to someone.
Is that a higher consequence than a failed engine?

So, we are getting back to the full list of everything needing to be mentioned

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

I would certainly expect the timing belt and auxiliary drive belt to be mentioned.

Why only that one?

What about the general internet consensus that the timing belt on this model needs changing at 8 years, 62.5k miles max?
OR, is reference to the manufacturer's recommendation sufficient?

If a dealer could articulate they followed the manufacturer's guidelines and that should be sufficient because the Regulations provide a trader with the defence that the commission of an offence was due to a mistake, reliance on information supplied to them, the act or default of another person, an accident or some other cause beyond the trader's control; and that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence  then it would be for the court to decide if they did indeed do due diligence. 

Grumpy_chap said:

Well, consequences of the timing belt failing are a new engine.
That's only money, though.

I assume the consequences of the brake fluid not being changed could be the failure of the braking system.
Failed brakes could mean injury or death to someone.
Is that a higher consequence than a failed engine?

So, we are getting back to the full list of everything needing to be mentioned

If the braking system forms part of the car being roadworthy and it's illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy isn't that issue on the dealer regardless? 

I don't see any of these things from your wife's car going back to your original list of:

check the lights daily, check the water level, check the oil, the car does not include a pump for checking the tyre air pressure, the tyre tread depth can wear down and needs to be checked regularly.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If the braking system forms part of the car being roadworthy and it's illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy isn't that issue on the dealer regardless? 

BUT, this was the hypothetical sale of my wife's car (or one of the same type) at 9.5 yo.  At 10 yo (within 6 months) the manufacturer's recommendation is to change the brake fluid.  So, it works and is road worthy, but needs to be done.  Do you think that needs to be mentioned?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Grumpy_chap said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If the braking system forms part of the car being roadworthy and it's illegal to sell a car that isn't roadworthy isn't that issue on the dealer regardless? 

BUT, this was the hypothetical sale of my wife's car (or one of the same type) at 9.5 yo.  At 10 yo (within 6 months) the manufacturer's recommendation is to change the brake fluid.  So, it works and is road worthy, but needs to be done.  Do you think that needs to be mentioned?

Honestly, I have no idea as we talking about a part that was due to be replaced imminently rather than fluid that needs to be done in 6 months.

Using your words and your worst case scenario of someone dying being realistic then as a car dealer I wouldn't want to be legally responsible for that in any way so would either mention it or change the fluid.

If there is anything that is going to cause the customer to come back within 6 months (burden of proof period) and cost you money it's good business sense to advise the customer of it so they can't cost you money in the future as they've been told, sadly it is also good business sense to not mention things where the buyer can be fobbed off or probably won't blame you because they don't know their rights and playing the averages can be more profitable than sticking to the law.

All I can say as a final point is if these places can do a 128 point check on a car to give you the confidence to buy it they can also check some parts to make sure the engine won't be knackered (or someone won't die as you so claim may be possible) in the near future.