Consumer Rights Act 2015 not recognised by dealer

jake_jones99

I am about to go ahead with a used car. The dealership claim the car only has 3 months warranty on the gearbox and engine. So I brought up the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which states if any faults are found within the first 6 months it's considered the responsibility of the seller who should fix it. (see: https://carowl.co.uk/wisdombase/buying/used-car-consumer-rights-uk-guide https://www.whatcar.com/news/your-legal-rights-if-something-goes-wrong-with-your-car/n3307 )

The dealers did not seem to recognise this and insisted the previous 3-month limited warranty. Should I be worried about this? To me it sounds like the law gives buyers an automatic 6-month warranty, unless I misunderstand it?

LeafGreen

I think the key point is that the consumer rights only concern issues that were present at the time of purchase, not ones that developed afterwards, although the onus is on the dealer to prove that the issue was not present at purchase rather than the buyer having to prove it was.

eskbanker

Yes, during the first six months, faults found are effectively assumed to have been present at sale, unless the trader can demonstrate otherwise, whereas after that the burden of proof is reversed - the trader is still required to fix faults but it's up to the customer to prove that they were present at sale.

Consumer rights are separate and different from warranties though, and the trader (and/or manufacturer) has plenty of leeway about the terms of the latter.

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6657033/consumer-rights-act-2015-not-recognised-by-dealer

You have misunderstood.

The CRA says that if a fault develops in the first 6 months its assumed that the fault was present at the point of sale but if the seller can disprove this or show you were aware of the problem when you bought it then they can defend the claim. After 6 months you have the same rights just the matter pivots and it becomes your responsibility to prove it was present at the point of sale rather than the detailer to disprove it.

This also isnt a warranty, it's a statutory right. The remediations under the CRA are a repair, replacement or refund though note that for motor vehicles they can deduct use from any refund before the 6 months is up unlike other goods.

Warranties are something in addition to your statutory rights, they can be better or worse because they dont replace them.

jake_jones99

I understand all your points, and I get legally it's different from a warranty. But from my point of view, the buyer, who gets a car and drives it and in 2 months it breaks down due to a failure (valve engine etc) it has the same impact, right?

Also, how would you use your statutory rights? Just go to the seller and tell them? Or you need some legal process?

MyRealNameToo

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900631#Comment_81900631

Not really, you're buying a secondhand car so its age will be taken into consideration. If you doing very high mileage in your two months of ownership it could potentially be pointed to the extra wear you have put on the vehicle. Remember this is civil law and so is on "the balance of probability" not the higher "beyond reasonable doubt" of criminal law.

If you had an unlimited mileage warranty it will respond, your statutory rights may not. The remedy available may also vary, as mentioned CRA they can deduct money for the thousands of miles you covered in those two months. A warranty could state its a full refund if unrepairable.

You use them by telling the dealer you intend to use them (or potentially a lender if you used a CC or such). If you are struggling to get them to agree etc then you go to court to try and enforce it, though the Motor Ombudsman may also be an option before court.

Mildly_Miffed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900631#Comment_81900631

Not really…

The warranty is simply an insurance product that pays for repairing things that go wrong, which are within the scope of the warranty. No (well, not much) argument about whether it was a pre-existing fault or whether it's wear and tear or whatever.

Your consumer rights are much slipperier. The short version for a second-hand car is whether it would be reasonable to expect that issue to have appeared if you'd bought that car new and still owned it. If the car is 15yo with 150k on the clock, that barrier is much lower than if it's less than a year old with 5k. The six month test is simply that, if the fault occurs within six months of ownership, it's presumed to have been there at purchase UNLESS the vendor can show it was not. After six months, that presumption changes ends.

You certainly have precisely zero legal recourse for EVERY squeak and rattle within six months of purchase of any used car, even a grand's-worth of shed.

They may point to the warranty as your route to repair.
If the warranty refuses to cover it, but you're still insistent that it's a CRA matter, then you're going to have to go back to them for the repair. You can't just get it diagnosed and fixed anywhere and expect to hand the bill over.
If they refuse to repair it, or the repair doesn't fix it, you may want to reject it.
If they refuse to accept that… then your next step is to physically return the car to them, along with all keys and paperwork etc - and take them to court for the money.

LightFlare

I think i would reconsider using that dealer

Mildly_Miffed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900793#Comment_81900793

I don't think the OP's misunderstanding of CRA15 is the dealer's fault.

forgotmyname

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900793#Comment_81900793

But we don't know anything about the car and the price. It could be a 20 year old car with 200000miles a dozen owners with bumps
and scrapes all over and only a couple of months worth of MOT left and just £500.

3 months warranty on that would be a bonus.

Mildly_Miffed

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81900891#Comment_81900891

I admire your optimism if you think the warranty would not just say "Nah, mate, wear and tear, not covered…"