Car Purchase

born_again

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891275#Comment_81891275

To cite Kia warranty

Limited liability

Under this warranty, Kia are only liable for the repair or replacement of original parts by an authorised Kia dealer that are defective in material or workmanship. Kia are not liable for any costs that may incur getting to a dealer, supplying a replacement car or as a result of being without the car during warranty repairs.

It is up to the dealer to provide a car, and since covid. They have no where as many as they did pre covid. So more often than not there are non to be had 🤷‍♀️

Don't think anyone has actually tested it in court & who exactly would you take to court,

Of course in OP case it is a bit easier on age of car. But does run the usual risk of doors closing & no one to claim back from 👍

Alderbank

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81891465#Comment_81891465

With respect, @Grumpy_chap, I take the opposite view. I don't think averages are what the Act is looking for.

Reasonable time is a matter of the facts. It depends on the unique facts of each case.

I don't think we know enough facts in this case to know whether the time is unreasonable. For instance, if some component was ordered promptly but took 10 weeks to arrive then it would be unreasonable to expect the job to be done in less than about 11 weeks. However if a new component was available off the shelf but the trader was waiting for a cheaper 9 year old part to appear on a breaker's website that would not be reasonable. Similarly with timing of jobs like skimming the head which was at the mercy of a specialist third party.

Once a repair shop starts on a job eg. by stripping the engine down they want to get it completed as soon as they can to free the bay up for other work. I can't see why a repair shop would deliberately choose to drag out the time taken to carry out a repair.

'Significant inconvenience' is different but is also case specific. It's always inconvenient not to have unfetterd access to your car, hence the 'significant'.

I agree in this case the delay of several weeks is probably significant and I believe that point would have been reached even sooner if the OP has any special circumstances, such as if they have an illness or disability, if they live far from public transport or if they are a carer for an elderly parent or disabled child.

The remedy offered by the CRA if reasonable time or significant inconvenience is exceeded is specifically to bring forward the point where the OP qualifies for the right to reject.

The CRA aims to be fair to both sides. S(23) says that once you agree to a repair you have to step back and allow the trader to get on with that. However if the time becomes unreasonable or the inconvenience becomes significant for the particular circumstances of your case, (S(23(6)) says you gain the right to go straight to the short-term right to reject.

Grumpy_chap

Many thanks @Alderbank

I think we may, actually, be in agreement.

I certainly agree that we don't know what the reason for the time taken is, which aligns with your comment about we don't know enough facts. I note that since my post, the OP has added more information that suggests the Mechanics were tardy in at least some of their actions which would tend towards supporting an "unreasonable" duration.

There are many ways where the law does consider the standard of "average" and I think that would apply in the case of the lead time for the components required to fix a car. The Mechanic that the OP is using would, I think, only be held to the standard of average and not expected to have some priority link to the CEO of the OEM to get the part by jumping the queue.

One area where the law tends not to consider the standard of "average" is in the case of impacts to individuals, but the trader is held required to "take the victim as they find them" (eggshell skull principle) so the level of inconvenience of being without a car is greater for an individual with mobility issues than an elite athlete. I don't, however, agree fully with your comment "It's always inconvenient not to have unfetterd access to your car" - I, for one, could be without my car for quite some time without being greatly inconvenienced as I can utilise my wife's car.

The extent to which an "unreasonable delay" causes "significant inconvenience" are subject to individual assessment on both counts.

In this case, the "unreasonable delay" does appear to have been established:

- 6th December = issues notified

- 3rd week January = began replacing the EGR cooler

- 3rd week January = checked the overheating issue / head gasket

It seems plausible that the period from 6th December to 3rd week January was "reasonable" to investigate the EGR and obtain the parts, particularly allowing for seasonal shut downs that there may have been.

IMO, what is the "unreasonable" time element is the delay to investigate the overheating issue / head gasket. Could these have been in parallel? If there is a good technical reason why the second could not be in parallel with the first, this might also not be "unreasonable".