Rights on a faulty car

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80025936#Comment_80025936

Yes and no.

You purchased a used car with a service history. The timing belt failed a short time after. You suspect it was the original timing belt.

- What was the exact age / mileage of the car when purchased?

- What is the recommended time / mileage for the timing belt to be changed as per the manufacturer service guide? (I would expect a consumer to become familiar with this.)

Let's consider a car purchased at 80k miles and 9 years, 11 months old. Let's consider that the manufacturer recommends the timing belt is renewed at 100k miles or 10 years. The car was purchased with the correct service history at time of purchase - it is then for the purchaser to ensure the car was maintained as per the manufacturer's service recommendation. That requires the timing belt is changed after a month or so. Had the Dealer already chjanged the timing belt, you can be failry certain they would have made thta very clear as part of the advertising.

DarloTerrier

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027277#Comment_80027277

I've done 2000 miles since February. I think Ford recommends replacing timing belt every 10years, which has literally just gone in January 23. No mention from the dealer that the timing belt is due to be renewed. Surely the onus is on them, the supposed specialists, to perhaps mention that it needs renewing as part of the advertising? After all, I as a consumer am not meant to know exactly when every part on a car needs renewing.

Wonka_2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80027722#Comment_80027722

No the onus isn't on them - it's due diligence to research and ask relevant questions.

If potential future cost was an important factor in the purchase then examining the car and the service history would have provided the necessary detail to allow you to be clear of the potential costs

DarloTerrier

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028271#Comment_80028271

This was not possible due to distance, as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP have a read of the government backed guidence:

https://www.businesscompanion.info/focus/car-traders-and-consumer-law/part-complying-consumer-protection-unfair-trading-regulations#Givinginsufficientinformationtoconsumersmisleadingomissionsreg6

It is a breach of the CPRs to mislead consumers by failing to give them the information they need in order to make informed decisions (misleading omissions). This includes the final decision to buy but also includes a wide range of decisions that have been or may be taken by consumers in relation to products. This is wide in chronological scope, covering decisions taken before, during and after a contract is formed.

4.6
This might, for example, be by omitting or hiding important information you are aware of (or you should reasonably have been aware of as a professional in the motor trade) or providing important information in an unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous, or untimely manner, where this is likely to cause the average consumer to take a different decision.

The trader ought to know the lifespan of the timing belt.

They ought to have checked the history to see if it had been replaced.

They ought to have brought it to your attention if it was nearing the end of it's life based on the milage and there was no indication it had been changed previously and possibly was due to be.

This would be my arguement to the finance company if you are looking at S75 claim, and of course the error in the desription regarding the tax and MOT advisories.

Manxman_in_exile

Unfortunately that is an inevitable problem if you buy a car sight unseen and without test-driving it.

If it was truly a distance sale (ie you bought it relying exclusively by means of distance communication and without you being in the physical presence of the seller) then you could have cancelled it (no reason required) for a full refund within 14 days.

Regardless of whether it was a distance contrcat or not, if it developed a fault within the firts 30 days you could have rejected it for a full refund anyway

tightauldgit

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80028363#Comment_80028363

I'm really not sure to what extent a dealer is expected to disclose all the possible things in a car that may go wrong and may require servicing or replacement in the coming 6 - 12 months though. Especially if it's in the manufacturers service book that it's required at X miles.

If it's been due and not done then seller may well be able to say that the car wasn't properly maintained in line with the manufacturer's guidance. If it was overdue at the time of sale then possibly the seller should have said - it was due a timing belt but it hasn't been done but that's also possibly just an inherent risk of buying a used car with a spotty service history.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

If it's been due and not done then seller may well be able to say that the car wasn't properly maintained in line with the manufacturer's guidance. 

That's ambigious and falls foul of 4.6.

I'm really not sure to what extent a dealer is expected to disclose all the possible things in a car that may go wrong and may require servicing or replacement in the coming 6 - 12 months though.

From the same guide.

Roadworthiness

5.17
You should ensure that you have procedures in place to check that vehicles you supply, offer to supply or expose for sale are safe and roadworthy. It is not sufficient to rely on MOT or service histories. This will usually mean arranging for a suitably qualified or competent person to carry out pre-sale mechanical inspections of vehicles and any problems that make them unroadworthy must be rectified.

Satisfactory quality

5.19
You should also take reasonable steps (through the pre-inspection procedures you have in place) to ensure that the vehicles you sell are of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 taking into account the age, mileage, condition, description and value of each vehicle. If you systematically fail to carry out such pre-sale mechanical checks, you may breach the CPRs. Prospective buyers should be made aware, prior to sale, of any faults identified.

I understand the timing belt possibility isn't a roadworthiness issue but it is a very important part of the engine and if the trader is having a competent person carrying out a pre-sale mechanical inspection of the vehicle the condition of the timing belt should be included in this (as if it's knakered it needs to be noted or fixed).

Ultimately the timing belt has a lifespan and it being noted that it needs to be replaced soon will certainly affect the decesion process for the consumer, omiting that information where it ought to be know would breach the CPRs.

Manxman_in_exile

I really don't like questions about used cars.

I'm not certain that the law wouldn't tolerate the appearance of faults in a used car in the same way that it wouldn't tolerate faults in other consumer purchases.

I can't help feeling that (regarding CRA 2015) a dealer might be able to argue successfully that because of the "nature " of used cars, they don't have the same liabilty to consumers as they might with other consumer goods. I simply don't know and I feel uneasy about what the legal position is.

Likewise with the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regs. I think if a trader knowingly lies or knowingly conceals information that he should reveal to a prospective purchaser, then he's probably committing a criminal offence. But if it's not done knowingly (ie he genuinely doesn't know, even if you could argue that as a dealer he should know) I'm not so sure. Plus you'd have to rely on the chocolate teapot that is Trading Standards to prosecute it…

tightauldgit

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80029167#Comment_80029167

I'm not sure what you mean by 'that's ambiguous and falls foul of 4.6' - if I sell you a car and you don't maintain it as you should and it fails then I think I can rightly say you haven't maintained it as you were supposed to, that's why it failed. Provided of course the maintenance would be relevant to the fault.

'You will need to replace this in the future in line with the manufacturer's guidance' is neither a roadworthiness issue nor in my opinion an issue of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.