How to actually get a dealer to repair a used car 2.5 months later?

Exodi

I'm somewhat skeptical on trying to look at this in such simple terms - particularly on a consumable part and several months use.

Taking it further, that would imply I could return a car because I had worn the tyres or brake pads down down, or left it parked outside for a month and the battery died. Unless of course the trader happens to have commissioned a battery health report prior to purchase or have surveillance of my driveway. In reality, I'm sure many smaller dealers, particularly for older cars, do not conduct such thorough inspections and reports. Some items are sold as faulty to begin with.

I think the OP should probably get a qualified legal opinion, because I think it's a near certainty the dealer will challenge this and court might be inevitable to achieve a resolution.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
I just can't see it's reasonable to pay 4 grand for a car and less than 3 months later need to pay out 3 grand in repairs

Why not? It's not unheard of for vehicles to be priced low due to anticipation of repairs. Good example might be electric cars and their batteries. It's not uncommon for an old car to have repair costs approaching the value of the car.

Ectophile

CazGreg said:

Ayr_Rage said:

At that price I would guess the car is pretty old, so what is the make, model, age and mileage?

Does it have any service history?

Clutches are wear and tear items and it's perfectly possible to wreck one in a few months.

What exactly is a "clutch drum"?

I think you'll struggle to prove the fault was present on purchase as you do not say there were any obvious issues at the time of purchase.

Under the Consumer Rights Act, within six months it is them who has to prove the fault wasn’t already present, right? The onus is on the car dealer. 

They will say that a clutch is a wear and tear part, so it's not their fault you wore it out.

So you need a report from another garage to show it was faulty, not just worn out.  Which will cost you money.

They then repeat that they aren't responsible.

You get the car fixed elsewhere and sue them.

They close down the company and replace it with a new one, which they have already set up.  They contunue trading at the same address under a new name.

You try to get the money from a company that has closed down.  It fails. You never get your money, and have paid for the report and court costs.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Exodi said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:
I just can't see it's reasonable to pay 4 grand for a car and less than 3 months later need to pay out 3 grand in repairs

Why not? It's not unheard of for vehicles to be priced low due to anticipation of repairs. Good example might be electric cars and their batteries. It's not uncommon for an old car to have repair costs approaching the value of the car.

Cars tend to be priced by the market, a car with 50k or whatever on the clock is worth one with 50k on the clock, give or take.

Ultimately reverse burden of proof means the ball is in the dealer's court, OP has little to lose by pursuing their claim (assuming the dealer won't fold). 

visidigi

could really do with the OP giving the make model and mileage here....

CazGreg

Why not? It's not unheard of for vehicles to be priced low due to anticipation of repairs. Good example might be electric cars and their batteries. It's not uncommon for an old car to have repair costs approaching the value of the car.

It was sold at (well, slightly above) market value, with no indication of anticipated repairs. Incidentally it has been only lightly used and I have a telematics device installed, which should go at least some way to proving I haven’t burned through a clutch/gearbox in two months of light local driving.

CazGreg

Ultimately reverse burden of proof means the ball is in the dealer's court, OP has little to lose by pursuing their claim (assuming the dealer won't fold). 

I don’t think it’s that likely they’ll just disappear. They’re pretty well established and long-running. I don’t know if that means I should be more scared about pursuing this, or more confident they won’t just fold and reopen under a new name. 

Ayr_Rage

Do tell use make, model, age, mileage and service history.

There may be a history of clutch failures with that particular vehicle.

born_again

CazGreg said:

Why not? It's not unheard of for vehicles to be priced low due to anticipation of repairs. Good example might be electric cars and their batteries. It's not uncommon for an old car to have repair costs approaching the value of the car.

It was sold at (well, slightly above) market value, with no indication of anticipated repairs. Incidentally it has been only lightly used and I have a telematics device installed, which should go at least some way to proving I haven’t burned through a clutch/gearbox in two months of light local driving.

Can you answer the question on car details?

sheslookinhot

Why are the car details so important ? Service history I can understand.

Ayr_Rage

sheslookinhot said:

Why are the car details so important ? Service history I can understand.

Ayr_Rage said:

Do tell use make, model, age, mileage and service history.

There may be a history of clutch failures with that particular vehicle.

The above, as I posted yesterday.

Service history is pretty much irrelevant, the clutch is not a service item except for fluid changes.