Rights on a faulty car

born_again

DarloTerrier said:What I can't live with is the timing belt going and wrecking the engine after only 2 months. 

Sadly with a 10 year old car, even if you have a full service history. You have no idea if a belt has been changed or not. But even then, a belt can fail, brand new or 10 year old. 
So you never have 100% certainty that you will not have problems.

Even Which point out

>You will need evidence that any fault is not attributable to the wear and tear of serviceable parts taking into account the age and condition of the vehicle and the number of miles it has driven.  <

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights-aAnMC5b0ZzJb

Grumpy_chap

DarloTerrier said:

 What I can't live with is the timing belt going and wrecking the engine after only 2 months. 

On this 10yo car, was there any evidence that the belt had been changed?
Or, was the recommended change interval yet to arrive?
Usually a time and distance criteria.

tedted

on these ford recommend every 10 years or 150000 miles but they tend to fail way before that blocking oil pump etc.

DarloTerrier

Grumpy_chap said:

DarloTerrier said:

 What I can't live with is the timing belt going and wrecking the engine after only 2 months. 

On this 10yo car, was there any evidence that the belt had been changed?
Or, was the recommended change interval yet to arrive?
Usually a time and distance criteria.

From what I can see from the paperwork, its the original 10 year and a couple of months timing belt. As a dealer, with them being the experts, surely the onus is on them to warn the customer that the belt is due for changing? As a customer, it's not my job to know of every part of a car and their renewal date. I expect a car to be of satisfactory quality to last more than 2 months.

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

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?

 

Yeah.  I try to avoid replying to threads about used cars as there are too many complications.  I try to stick to straighforward issues with brand new cars.  Much simpler.

Manxman_in_exile

born_again said:

DarloTerrier said:What I can't live with is the timing belt going and wrecking the engine after only 2 months. 

Sadly with a 10 year old car, even if you have a full service history. You have no idea if a belt has been changed or not. But even then, a belt can fail, brand new or 10 year old. 
So you never have 100% certainty that you will not have problems.

Even Which point out

>You will need evidence that any fault is not attributable to the wear and tear of serviceable parts taking into account the age and condition of the vehicle and the number of miles it has driven.  <

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights-aAnMC5b0ZzJb

Yeah.  Too many complicated variables on used cars.  I try to steer away from those threads.

Wonka_2

From what I can see from the paperwork, its the original 10 year and a couple of months timing belt. As a dealer, with them being the experts, surely the onus is on them to warn the customer that the belt is due for changing? As a customer, it's not my job to know of every part of a car and their renewal date. I expect a car to be of satisfactory quality to last more than 2 months.

Out of interest did you actually deal with the Dealer at any point ? How did you get to the point that you had to use 'that' dealer that was a distance from home ? Did you select a specific car off a finance companies list or did you give them a price point and they came back with a number of cars ?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you actually have any contract with the Dealer and what role the finance company play in this ?

DarloTerrier

Wonka_2 said:

From what I can see from the paperwork, its the original 10 year and a couple of months timing belt. As a dealer, with them being the experts, surely the onus is on them to warn the customer that the belt is due for changing? As a customer, it's not my job to know of every part of a car and their renewal date. I expect a car to be of satisfactory quality to last more than 2 months.

Out of interest did you actually deal with the Dealer at any point ? How did you get to the point that you had to use 'that' dealer that was a distance from home ? Did you select a specific car off a finance companies list or did you give them a price point and they came back with a number of cars ?

I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether you actually have any contract with the Dealer and what role the finance company play in this ?

Most of my dealings were with the finance company who only worked in partnership with selected dealers, none of which happened to be in my town  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

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 think if there was specific exemption it would be mentioned in the same way as 24(10)(a), an opened end "get out clause" wouldn't appear consistent with the act really. 

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

I don't think 19(15)(b) is widely known on here  

DarloTerrier said:

From what I can see from the paperwork, its the original 10 year and a couple of months timing belt. As a dealer, with them being the experts, surely the onus is on them to warn the customer that the belt is due for changing? As a customer, it's not my job to know of every part of a car and their renewal date. I expect a car to be of satisfactory quality to last more than 2 months.

DarloTerrier This would be my view OP, I'd expect a dealer to inspect a car and replace any parts that are at the end of their life, it should be a selling point that increases the value beyond the cost of the work. 

If they didn't do this then omitting aspects from the description that would affect the economic activity of the average consumer would be a prohibited commercial practice and I expect them to state any aspects that nearing the end of their life. 

That aside, apologies if you already said, have you contacted the dealer and stated you are rejecting the car?

DarloTerrier

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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 think if there was specific exemption it would be mentioned in the same way as 24(10)(a), an opened end "get out clause" wouldn't appear consistent with the act really. 

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

I don't think 19(15)(b) is widely known on here  

DarloTerrier said:

From what I can see from the paperwork, its the original 10 year and a couple of months timing belt. As a dealer, with them being the experts, surely the onus is on them to warn the customer that the belt is due for changing? As a customer, it's not my job to know of every part of a car and their renewal date. I expect a car to be of satisfactory quality to last more than 2 months.

DarloTerrier This would be my view OP, I'd expect a dealer to inspect a car and replace any parts that are at the end of their life, it should be a selling point that increases the value beyond the cost of the work. 

If they didn't do this then omitting aspects from the description that would affect the economic activity of the average consumer would be a prohibited commercial practice and I expect them to state any aspects that nearing the end of their life. 

That aside, apologies if you already said, have you contacted the dealer and stated you are rejecting the car?

Spoke to the finance company as it's technically still their car. They were very helpful and advised speak to the dealer. Dealer doesn't seem to want to know, pretty much "not our problem". So going back to the finance company later.....