Rights on a faulty car

tightauldgit

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

My knowledge on this is a bit sketchy but is there a time limit on rejecting something that isn't as described? It does seem clear that the car wasn't as described so surely you can return it? On the other hand it does seem a little sketchy that you can exercise that right when something else goes wrong with the car that's unconnected? Could they deduct the cost of repairing any new fault as the car being returned in a poor condition?

There's no time imposed but the general principle is you pay for the use you've had by way of a reduction from the refund however the regs have afforded a 6 month period where a full refund is due (excluding motor vehicles).

So if you buy a blue widget but get sent a green one you could keep it and use it for for 29 days and then use the short term right to reject for a full refund. You could potentially keep it and use it for 5 months and 29 days but with the right to replace/repair coming first you might not end up with a refund. 

It is of course best to report any problems and exercise your rights asap.

Regarding the cost of repair, the trader should bear the cost of repair/replace so if your new TV breaks after 2 months, the company spend £200 fixing it and then it breaks again after another 2 months and you reject for a refund the company can't deduct the £200 they spent fixing it the first time, it must be a full refund within the 6 months. If the TV broke for a second time after the 6 months then the reduction in the refund would be for use rather than considering any previous repair costs. 

With the car it would go back to the dealer and, simplistically speaking, that repair either adds value to the car or the car was over priced by the cost of repair. Same with the TV really, the consumer has paid an amount for something described as xyz and those repair costs simply give the consumer what they originally paid for rather than benefitting them. 

The issue here is whether the trader would argue the refund was a price reduction but without rejecting the car the OP won't know what stance the trader wishes to take  

No, my question was more if you order a blue widget and get a green widget but then 6 months later your widget breaks then if you try to reject it as being not as described (it's green not blue) then can the supplier refund for the value of a broken widget which you returned rather than a working widget. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

tightauldgit said:

No, my question was more if you order a blue widget and get a green widget but then 6 months later your widget breaks then if you try to reject it as being not as described (it's green not blue) then can the supplier refund for the value of a broken widget which you returned rather than a working widget. 

In short I don't know.  

Perhaps it's a question of negligence, things such as scuffs or dings are basically use, however if you order a silver TV, get a black one, decide to keep it but reject it 4 months later for being the wrong colour but have also made a remote control sized hole in the screen it does seem appropriate you'd be liable for the cost of fixing the screen but what seems right and what is covered by law doesn't always match.

I think most people would assume it's wrong and not try or not have the confidence to make such a claim so it's unlikely to come up. 

With parts failing on a car that's more wear and tear but if you smashed all the windows that might be considered a different matter.

bris

Its a used car, the 30 days right to reject is absolute but as you are outside that point then you are relying on consumer rights.

The problem with used cars are they come with wear and tear free of charge so the age and mileage is a huge factor here

Timing belts need changed at some point, usually the manual tells you how many miles or years before changing it they don't last forever so are a wear and tear item.

The manufacture has a schedule for replacing things in the manual, as the owner you need to be the one making sure these things are done.

Have you had the car long enough for that to be the reason? Only the courts can decide that matter.

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

tightauldgit said:

My knowledge on this is a bit sketchy but is there a time limit on rejecting something that isn't as described? It does seem clear that the car wasn't as described so surely you can return it? On the other hand it does seem a little sketchy that you can exercise that right when something else goes wrong with the car that's unconnected? Could they deduct the cost of repairing any new fault as the car being returned in a poor condition?

There's no time imposed but the general principle is you pay for the use you've had by way of a reduction from the refund however the regs have afforded a 6 month period where a full refund is due (excluding motor vehicles).

So if you buy a blue widget but get sent a green one you could keep it and use it for for 29 days and then use the short term right to reject for a full refund. You could potentially keep it and use it for 5 months and 29 days but with the right to replace/repair coming first you might not end up with a refund. 

It is of course best to report any problems and exercise your rights asap.

Regarding the cost of repair, the trader should bear the cost of repair/replace so if your new TV breaks after 2 months, the company spend £200 fixing it and then it breaks again after another 2 months and you reject for a refund the company can't deduct the £200 they spent fixing it the first time, it must be a full refund within the 6 months. If the TV broke for a second time after the 6 months then the reduction in the refund would be for use rather than considering any previous repair costs. 

With the car it would go back to the dealer and, simplistically speaking, that repair either adds value to the car or the car was over priced by the cost of repair. Same with the TV really, the consumer has paid an amount for something described as xyz and those repair costs simply give the consumer what they originally paid for rather than benefitting them. 

The issue here is whether the trader would argue the refund was a price reduction but without rejecting the car the OP won't know what stance the trader wishes to take  

No, my question was more if you order a blue widget and get a green widget but then 6 months later your widget breaks then if you try to reject it as being not as described (it's green not blue) then can the supplier refund for the value of a broken widget which you returned rather than a working widget. 

Good question...  

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

... Within the first 6 months any issues are taken unless demonstrated otherwise so you ideally want to get this point of rejecting the car across before the 6 months has past. 

Typically within the first 6 months a full refund is due but that doesn't apply to motor vehicles so a deduction for use is permitted...

I posted about this aspect on another car thread.

You hardly ever see this point being made in respect of either new cars or used cars.

Does the 6 months rule apply to cars generally, or is there an argument that cars fall under the exception in s19(15)(b)?

I don't see how a car seller could ever demonstrate that a fault that manifests itself within 6 months was not present at the time of sale, so why is the 6 months rule hardly ever mentioned?

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

... Within the first 6 months any issues are taken unless demonstrated otherwise so you ideally want to get this point of rejecting the car across before the 6 months has past. 

Typically within the first 6 months a full refund is due but that doesn't apply to motor vehicles so a deduction for use is permitted...

I posted about this aspect on another car thread.

You hardly ever see this point being made in respect of either new cars or used cars.

Does the 6 months rule apply to cars generally, or is there an argument that cars fall under the exception in s19(15)(b)?

I don't see how a car seller could ever demonstrate that a fault that manifests itself within 6 months was not present at the time of sale, so why is the 6 months rule hardly ever mentioned?

Regarding "its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract" I thought this meant if you use a hand saw intended to cut wood in an attempt to cut a piece of metal the fact the blades wore out too quickly would be incompatible with the nature of the goods or how they failed to conform rather than a lack of durability.

I don't think it's taking about the ability to demonstrate otherwise as this would mean a lot of products would be exempt as it's near impossible to demonstrate otherwise without some kind of scientific analysis of the product. 

Wonka_2

Aylesbury_Duck said:

£6k for a ten year old Ford Focus?  Blimey.  Is it a special model or something that made it such a bargain that it was worth snapping up without seeing or driving it?

No - it'll be a 'we'll find you a car for £99 a month' sort of deal - £99 x 60months + interest gets you a £3k car for £8k+

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

... Within the first 6 months any issues are taken unless demonstrated otherwise so you ideally want to get this point of rejecting the car across before the 6 months has past. 

Typically within the first 6 months a full refund is due but that doesn't apply to motor vehicles so a deduction for use is permitted...

I posted about this aspect on another car thread.

You hardly ever see this point being made in respect of either new cars or used cars.

Does the 6 months rule apply to cars generally, or is there an argument that cars fall under the exception in s19(15)(b)?

I don't see how a car seller could ever demonstrate that a fault that manifests itself within 6 months was not present at the time of sale, so why is the 6 months rule hardly ever mentioned?

Regarding "its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract" I thought this meant if you use a hand saw intended to cut wood in an attempt to cut a piece of metal the fact the blades wore out too quickly would be incompatible with the nature of the goods or how they failed to conform rather than a lack of durability.

I don't think it's taking about the ability to demonstrate otherwise as this would mean a lot of products would be exempt as it's near impossible to demonstrate otherwise without some kind of scientific analysis of the product. 

Yes - that's what I'm referring to.

I suppose it could be argued that cars (especially used ones) are different in nature from most other goods that are sold in that things naturally wear out and break etc etc. and parts are subject to scheduled servicing and replacement in the normal course of their useful life

I'm just puzzled as to why the usual advice on here about used cars bought form traders doesn't make more use of the presumption that any faults that appear in the first 6 months were there at purchase, unless the trader can establish otherwise.

So I'm wondering if people believe 19(15)(b) applies.

tightauldgit

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

... Within the first 6 months any issues are taken unless demonstrated otherwise so you ideally want to get this point of rejecting the car across before the 6 months has past. 

Typically within the first 6 months a full refund is due but that doesn't apply to motor vehicles so a deduction for use is permitted...

I posted about this aspect on another car thread.

You hardly ever see this point being made in respect of either new cars or used cars.

Does the 6 months rule apply to cars generally, or is there an argument that cars fall under the exception in s19(15)(b)?

I don't see how a car seller could ever demonstrate that a fault that manifests itself within 6 months was not present at the time of sale, so why is the 6 months rule hardly ever mentioned?

Regarding "its application is incompatible with the nature of the goods or with how they fail to conform to the contract" I thought this meant if you use a hand saw intended to cut wood in an attempt to cut a piece of metal the fact the blades wore out too quickly would be incompatible with the nature of the goods or how they failed to conform rather than a lack of durability.

I don't think it's taking about the ability to demonstrate otherwise as this would mean a lot of products would be exempt as it's near impossible to demonstrate otherwise without some kind of scientific analysis of the product. 

Yes - that's what I'm referring to.

I suppose it could be argued that cars (especially used ones) are different in nature from most other goods that are sold in that things naturally wear out and break etc etc. and parts are subject to scheduled servicing and replacement in the normal course of their useful life

I'm just puzzled as to why the usual advice on here about used cars bought form traders doesn't make more use of the presumption that any faults that appear in the first 6 months were there at purchase, unless the trader can establish otherwise.

So I'm wondering if people believe 19(15)(b) applies.

Which? seem to think that the 6 month rule certainly applies to used cars but it may well just come down to interpretation of what's a fault and what's normal wear and tear. 

I also don't know if the interpretation of 'satisfactory quality' would be different for used items - if you buy a 25 year old car for £100 from a dealer would the law really give me an effective 6 month warranty on the item to return it anytime it develops a fault? Or would it be considered that a reasonable person would expect a 25 year old car that cost £100 to have a lifespan of 6 months or less?

 

DarloTerrier

Aylesbury_Duck said:

DarloTerrier said:

Wonka_2 said:

DarloTerrier said:

Hi
Purchased a car through a finance company on 13th February. Had to use their recommended garage. in a different town to me ( so I didn't couldn't realistically view it ). However the car was advertised "12 month MOT with no advisories, £0 tax, full service history, comprehensive warranty" - I still have evidence of this. So I trusted that it would be in good condition and bought it based on those statements.
On delivery the car had an obvious suspension problem. The warranty company said suspension wasn't covered, so the dealer advised to take it back to their garage to look at - not possible due to distance. We agreed that I would use my usual garage and he would reimburse me, which after a bit of chasing he did - fair enough.
The car now has a major timing belt problem ( I'm no car expert ) which has had a knock on effect for other parts of the engine. In total this is going to cost me over £1000. The warranty company again are saying its not covered. The warranty runs out on 13th May ( 3 months since car purchase ). Am I within my rights to refuse the car due to the problems, as I'm within the first 3 months of purchase? Should I contact the finance company to report to them first, or the dealer where I got it from?

I should add that the car came with 12 months MOT WITH advisories, the tax was £30 and not zero, it did have some service history but nothing since 2021, and what's the definition of a COMPREHENSIVE warranty?!

So presumably this is a sub-prime lender where you've ended up with an over-priced piece of **** from the bottom of the pile.

How old ? What sort of price are we talking here ? 

Assuming the transaction was carried our at a distance (i.e. you didn't visit the dealer/test drive the car) then you'd have had rejection rights within 14 days whereas now you're going to have to engage with the dealer - whether you consider it possible or not due to the distance

And on the bottom (bold) part - this could easily have been checked before accepting the car - tax rates and MOT results are visible online with a registration number - and many cars are on 2yr service intervals now so, depending on make/model, that may not be the issue you're making it out to be 

Wonka_2 said:

DarloTerrier said:

Hi
Purchased a car through a finance company on 13th February. Had to use their recommended garage. in a different town to me ( so I didn't couldn't realistically view it ). However the car was advertised "12 month MOT with no advisories, £0 tax, full service history, comprehensive warranty" - I still have evidence of this. So I trusted that it would be in good condition and bought it based on those statements.
On delivery the car had an obvious suspension problem. The warranty company said suspension wasn't covered, so the dealer advised to take it back to their garage to look at - not possible due to distance. We agreed that I would use my usual garage and he would reimburse me, which after a bit of chasing he did - fair enough.
The car now has a major timing belt problem ( I'm no car expert ) which has had a knock on effect for other parts of the engine. In total this is going to cost me over £1000. The warranty company again are saying its not covered. The warranty runs out on 13th May ( 3 months since car purchase ). Am I within my rights to refuse the car due to the problems, as I'm within the first 3 months of purchase? Should I contact the finance company to report to them first, or the dealer where I got it from?

I should add that the car came with 12 months MOT WITH advisories, the tax was £30 and not zero, it did have some service history but nothing since 2021, and what's the definition of a COMPREHENSIVE warranty?!

So presumably this is a sub-prime lender where you've ended up with an over-priced piece of **** from the bottom of the pile.

How old ? What sort of price are we talking here ? 

Assuming the transaction was carried our at a distance (i.e. you didn't visit the dealer/test drive the car) then you'd have had rejection rights within 14 days whereas now you're going to have to engage with the dealer - whether you consider it possible or not due to the distance

And on the bottom (bold) part - this could easily have been checked before accepting the car - tax rates and MOT results are visible online with a registration number - and many cars are on 2yr service intervals now so, depending on make/model, that may not be the issue you're making it out to be 

Its a 2013 Ford Focus. The dealer was advertising it on their website while it didnt have an MOT, but MOT'd it on the day of sale to me, but it had advisories on that MOT. I didn't have a chance to question it. They advertised it as "comes with 12 months MOT with no advisories" 
Sale price was just under £6k, but its nearer £8.5k on finance.

£6k for a ten year old Ford Focus?  Blimey.  Is it a special model or something that made it such a bargain that it was worth snapping up without seeing or driving it?

It's a shame you didn't reject it immediately, on the basis that it didn't conform to the description, ie. That it had advisories when the advert said it didn't.  What are the advisories?

That's a standard car dealer price. And of course it was a risk buying it online, but everything you buy online has risks. That's why I thought buying from a dealer as opposed to private would offer me that bit more consumer protection. Advisories were that it needs new tyres. I can live that. What I can't live with is the timing belt going and wrecking the engine after only 2 months.