Van broken 1 month over 3 month warranty.

born_again

Carlisle1967 said:

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.

Life is a learning curve. Not your fault, it could have gone a lot longer, or failed the day after you bought it. 
Many people have them fail long before yours as they only do low miles & clog the DPF long before.

One thing with cars etc. These days there are forums covering just about all of them. Always worth a look through these, even join & ask the usual questions on what you are looking at for advice on just what to look for & avoid.

Sadly these days, there is so much stuff like DPF & electronics that can go wrong & cost a arm & a leg to fix.

powerful_Rogue

Carlisle1967 said:

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.

You just check the battery health before buying a used EV.

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

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...

I'm sorry, but to me that just means you've made your point up out of thin air and has no basis in anything except what you think is "right".

The question about "where in the legislation does it support your point of view?" is important because virtually all consumer protection in this country is based on legislation - and that's because the common law gave virtually no protection to consumers at all.  (eg caveat emptor).

If you can't find any requirement in consumer legislation for a prospective consumer to do "due diligence", or to carry out basic research, or to know what is in the public domain, then the consumer need not do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no such requirement under UK consumer law so if you know where it is, please tell.

Note that I am not suggesting that not carrying out appropriate research before buying a second-hand car is either a prudent or a sensible thing to do, but I am saying that the law does not require a consumer to have done so in order to exercise their consumer rights under the appropriate legislation.  The law doesn't distinguish between ignorant consumers on one hand and  knowledgeable consumers on the other.

Also the whole point of consumer legislation is that it is biased in favour of consumers and against traders.  It isn't designed to be a level playing field - it was designed to be tilted in the consumer's favour.

Somebody commented on another thread a few weeks ago along the lines of "the law won't allow a trader to be held responsible for things beyond their control or that they don't know about", but that is precisely what the CRA does.

Grumpy_chap

Manxman_in_exile said:

Grumpy_chap said:

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...

I'm sorry, but to me that just means you've made your point up out of thin air and has no basis in anything except what you think is "right".

The question about "where in the legislation does it support your point of view?" is important because virtually all consumer protection in this country is based on legislation - and that's because the common law gave virtually no protection to consumers at all.  (eg caveat emptor).

If you can't find any requirement in consumer legislation for a prospective consumer to do "due diligence", or to carry out basic research, or to know what is in the public domain, then the consumer need not do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no such requirement under UK consumer law so if you know where it is, please tell.

Note that I am not suggesting that not carrying out appropriate research before buying a second-hand car is either a prudent or a sensible thing to do, but I am saying that the law does not require a consumer to have done so in order to exercise their consumer rights under the appropriate legislation.  The law doesn't distinguish between ignorant consumers on one hand and  knowledgeable consumers on the other.

Also the whole point of consumer legislation is that it is biased in favour of consumers and against traders.  It isn't designed to be a level playing field - it was designed to be tilted in the consumer's favour.

Somebody commented on another thread a few weeks ago along the lines of "the law won't allow a trader to be held responsible for things beyond their control or that they don't know about", but that is precisely what the CRA does.

I love your interpretation.
You see, I am currently in the market for a new car and was going to spend a lot of money.
It turns out, I can buy this instead and save a packet:
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202305067077333
There is nothing in the advert suggesting anything other than a perfect car, so I will be covered by consumer rights if anything goes wrong in the first 6 months and get a full refund.
It's got air conditioning, which will be especially good with the summer coming.
If the car is still working in 6 months, then that will be fantastic - but this is a win-win for me, either a great car that keeps me going for decades to come or a clapped out banger that I can send back because of whatever fault and get my full refund.

In fact, of the cars I did actually call up to see, I found from my own investigations:

• one a previous taxi rather than the 17k mile 4 yo car it purported to be - franchised dealer
• one advertised at 51k miles had 63k miles a year ago - car supermarket
• one prior accident damage - independent back-street dealer

I was clearly wasting my time with those investigations.  I should have just bought one of the cars and then sorted it all out and reject for a full refund after 6 months.

Carlisle1967

So grumpy_chap you’re interpretation is if you spend 20k on a used Tesla and it packs up in a couple of months that’s you’re fault as a battery is a consumable part?

Grumpy_chap

Carlisle1967 said:

So grumpy_chap you’re interpretation is if you spend 20k on a used Tesla and it packs up in a couple of months that’s you’re fault as a battery is a consumable part?

I don't think I said that.
I don't think I said anything about batteries.

That said, the 12V battery in a car is a consumable part and if it failed on a used car shortly after purchase, I'd probably accept that as a consumable part.

I'd also expect to pay for the time belt to be changed if the car crossed over the recommended interval as per manufacturer service schedule.

So far as I am aware, EV manufacturers do not list battery replacement (for the motive power battery) as a maintenance item.  On that basis, the battery is not a consumable part.

Manxman_in_exile

Grumpy_chap said:

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 said:

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

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?...

@Grumpy_chap -  perhaps I'm missing something but what is the point of posing a hypothetical question that appears to offer three alternative answers, A, B, and C and asking which, if any, apply and then - when someone answers B - ask them why they didn't give the alternative Bb that you hadn't even offered?   

I think it's more than a little disingenuous to pose a hypothetical question which offers a selection of hypothetical optional answers and then say that the correct answer is an option that you had not given.  

FWIW, if I were the dealer in your hypothetical question (as originally posed) I would answer as follows:

I would examine the service history in my possession and check whether the items you have mentioned have been carried out according to the manufacturer's recommendations.  Assuming that they had, I would draw to a prospective buyer's attention that the timing belt and aux belt were due for replacement in about 6 months, and that the brake fluid and coolant also needed draining and changing at the same time.

If I didn't have a full service history or I was otherwise uncertain as to whether everything had been done that should have been done, then I would either have the necessary work carried out myself or I would tell any prospective purchaser that the brake fluid and coolant and spark plugs and air filter might need changing now and that the timing belt and aux belt will soon be due for renewal.  Although if I were a prospective purchaser and a dealer told me that, I'd run a mile.

However, if I'd been made aware from the outset of your unrevealed optional answer and I knew that the timing belt and aux belt had not been repalced in the previous 9.5 years then I'd either arrange for the work to be done myself or I'd explain the situation to any prosepective buyer (ie that the manufacturer recommends replacing them after 10 years but there is a widespread internet consensus that they should be replaced after 8 years or 62.5k miles) and let them decide.

(Sorry - I'll have to continue on a new post as my cursor has got trapped in a quote box!!!!)

SpudGunPaul

Carlisle1967 said:

I purchased this privately so it is not registered to any business.

It's always the case. 

Carlisle1967

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlisle1967 said:

So grumpy_chap you’re interpretation is if you spend 20k on a used Tesla and it packs up in a couple of months that’s you’re fault as a battery is a consumable part?

I don't think I said that.
I don't think I said anything about batteries.

That said, the 12V battery in a car is a consumable part and if it failed on a used car shortly after purchase, I'd probably accept that as a consumable part.

I'd also expect to pay for the time belt to be changed if the car crossed over the recommended interval as per manufacturer service schedule.

So far as I am aware, EV manufacturers do not list battery replacement (for the motive power battery) as a maintenance item.  On that basis, the battery is not a consumable part.

How is a battery not a consumable part as they degrade over time, use and how they they are charged?

Manxman_in_exile

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. 

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?...

I'm not sure if you've realised it, but by giving a response like that to someone who has just admitted that they aren't really a car person, you've sort of demonstrated very well why the party with specialist or expert knowledge (the dealer) is obliged to pass on to the consumer significant information that might affect their decision whether or not to buy.