Seatbelt issue after buying a car

Okell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977386#Comment_81977386

Although I've used the term "sufficiently significant" so as not to mislead the OP, I'm not convinced that that is necessarily the case.

Playing Devil's advocate s9(3)(e) of the CRA specifically mentions "freedom from minor defects" as one of the aspects that can be considered in assessing the quality of goods.

I'm interested that it specifically refers to "freedom from minor defects" and not "significant" or "major" defects.

Also in the Car Expert article you link to they seem to contradict themselves by saying on both page 2 and page 3 that: 'According to the Act, the ‘goods’ (i.e. – the car) must be “of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and free from any defect” ' [My bold for emphasis]

I can't actually find where in the Act it says that, but if the Car Expert quote from the Act is correct, then it seems to cover any/all defects not just significant ones.

I'd have hoped that if Parliament had intended to cover only significant faults they would have expressly said so?

.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81977968#Comment_81977968

Thanks.

We are dealing here with a used car so that creates an understanding that the item might not be perfect as a brand new car would be expected to be. The level of expectation as to the quality of the goods is tempered by the age and condition of the goods.

In this case, with the OP's seatbelt, we don't really even know whether the damage is minor fraying and just cosmetic or a safety issue. The OP states the seatbelt would not pass the MOT but, possibly tellingly, has not answered the questions as to who determined that status - their own lay-person view or the view of a qualified MOT Tester.

I used the tyre example as an indicator of a defect that I don't think would be considered as ground to reject the vehicle by a reasonable person.

I have another even more extreme example.

Let's consider that I buy a brand new car, so it should be perfect in every sense. After one week, the headlight bulb fails and the associated warning indicator displays on the dashboard. Failed headlight would fail the MOT. It is so recent that the fault can be assumed to have been present or developing at the time of purchase. Would a reasonable person consider that suitable grounds to reject the car? OR would a reasonable person accept the Dealer replacing the bulb (or the full lamp cluster as may be the case) as an acceptable remedy?

I would consider that rejecting the vehicle on the basis of that headlight bulb was not appropriate.

Let's consider the same car, which had the headlight bulb replaced after 1 week but then needed the same headlight bulb replaced after a 2nd week and after the 3rd week. This might now suggest an inherent electrical fault and might create the grounds for rejection.

Returning to the OP's seatbelt which was, apparently, chewed by a dog.

I assume the guilty dog was not also in the back of the car when the car was collected and I take the OP at face value that it was not their dog that chewed the seatbelt after purchase.

So, there was a cause of the damage that is not going to repeat.

Let's assume the damage is significant enough to cause an MOT failure, so this seatbelt needs replacing.

I don't think a reasonable person would consider that this gives grounds to reject the car.

The replacement of the seatbelt will resolve the matter - the discussion is only around who has to pay for that replacement seatbelt.

OR, is your position that any fault, so even just the isolated blown rear number plate blub, gives grounds to reject the car?