rejecting car after 8 weeks

stevo90
stevo90 Posts: 3 Newbie
in Motoring
hi all, looking for a bit of advice, purchased a used vehicle 2 months ago, £8000, 2012 with 70,000 miles within the first week had an oil leak so sent back, car was repaired, one week later had a split cv boot, again car repaired,fast forward to 5 weeks and started getting a host of warning lights on the dashboard, abs/esp failure, power steering warning, stop/start failure, tpms failure,handbrake failure. dealer has had the car for 1 week now and still havent found the cause,plus the original oil leak has returned. where do i stand with this, can i move to reject the vehicle, ask them to replace it, car is on finance aswell so do i speak to them as they are technically the owners of it

thanks in advance
«1

Comments

  • ratrace
    ratrace Posts: 1,009 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    What car is it, there may be a common problem that is casuing the oil leak to return for eg astara mk5 is common for oil to leak from the oil sensor/switch



    so a bit more details would be great also all the warning light coming on at the same time could be that there is only one fault but is trigging the others to come on
    “People are caught up in an egotistic artificial rat race to display a false image to society. We want the biggest house, fanciest car, and we don't mind paying the sky high mortgage to put up that show. We sacrifice our biggest assets our health and time, We feel happy when we see people look up to us and see how successful we are”

    Rat Race
  • stevo90
    stevo90 Posts: 3 Newbie
    car is a vw passat b7, they have replaced an abs sensor as thats what the code reader brings up, problem still persists, could be an abs module or a wiring fault, but they are hesitant on replacing the module due to the price, to me thats not my problem, the onus is on them to repair the vehicle surely?
  • Le_Kirk
    Le_Kirk Posts: 22,306 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Photogenic Name Dropper
    Use the consumer rights act but here is the relevant text: -
    If you're outside the 30-day right to reject, the retailer has an opportunity to repair or replace any faulty goods or digital content before offering a full refund.

    If you discover the fault within the first six months from delivery, it's presumed to have been there from the time you received it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise.

    During this time, it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of delivery - it's not up to you to prove that it was.

    If an attempt at repair or replacement has failed, you have the right to reject the goods for a full refund, or a price reduction if you wish to keep the product.

    The retailer can't make any deductions from a refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    stevo90 wrote: »
    purchased a used vehicle 2 months ago, £8000, 2012 with 70,000 miles within the first week had an oil leak so sent back, car was repaired, one week later had a split cv boot, again car repaired,
    OK, good for them.

    fast forward to 5 weeks and started getting a host of warning lights on the dashboard, abs/esp failure, power steering warning, stop/start failure, tpms failure,handbrake failure.
    They will all be down to a single root cause, an electronic (probably sensor) failure, since they are all interlinked.



    Nothing you've listed is unreasonable to expect on a 6yo, 70k mile car due to simple wear and tear, so is all outside the remit of the CRA. The electronic hiccup was clearly not present at the time of sale, so while they are repairing it, they have no legal obligation to do so unless it comes under any aftermarket warranty above your consumer rights.
  • Hermione_Granger
    Hermione_Granger Posts: 1,418 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker First Post
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Nothing you've listed is unreasonable to expect on a 6yo, 70k mile car due to simple wear and tear, so is all outside the remit of the CRA. The electronics hiccup was clearly not present at the time of sale, so while they are repairing it, they have no legal obligation to do so unless it comes under any aftermarket warranty above your consumer rights.
    Rubbish.
    You seem to have forgotten what the CRA states regarding faults that appear within 6 months from purchase.
    The trader can't simply state wear and tear and refuse to do anything. They are legally required to prove that the fault isn't due to something that was there at the time of sale.
    Surely you know that an inherent fault is one that was there at the time of sale but not necessarily apparent so even though "the hiccup" wasn't present when the car was sold, this doesn't mean that there wasn't a faulty component at that time.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Hermione_Granger wrote: »
    You seem to have forgotten what the CRA states regarding faults that appear within 6 months from purchase.
    And you didn't read the second sentence of the post you replied to.

    They are legally required to prove that the fault isn't due to something that was there at the time of sale.
    And that's easy for them. The OP was driving around for north of a month before the sensor failed.
    Is it unreasonable for a sensor to fail without warning after 6yrs/70k? Absolutely not.
  • unholyangel
    unholyangel Posts: 16,863 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    AdrianC wrote: »
    And you didn't read the second sentence of the post you replied to.



    And that's easy for them. The OP was driving around for north of a month before the sensor failed.
    Is it unreasonable for a sensor to fail without warning after 6yrs/70k? Absolutely not.

    How does the OP driving around for a month prove the fault isn't inherent? An inherent fault is one that is present at the time of sale but not necessarily apparent at that time.

    And strictly speaking, its not for faults, its for lack of conformity. aka doesn't match its description, isn't fit for purpose, isn't of satisfactory quality/doesn't last a reasonable amount of time etc
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
  • Ectophile
    Ectophile Posts: 7,330 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    AdrianC wrote: »
    And you didn't read the second sentence of the post you replied to.



    And that's easy for them. The OP was driving around for north of a month before the sensor failed.
    Is it unreasonable for a sensor to fail without warning after 6yrs/70k? Absolutely not.


    Not even close. Within the first 6 months after purchase, it is up to the retailer to show that the component was not faulty at the time of sale. It doesn't make any difference that it was second-hand. It should be in a fit state to last another six months, not be so worn out that it's about to fail.
    If it sticks, force it.
    If it breaks, well it wasn't working right anyway.
  • shaun_from_Africa
    shaun_from_Africa Posts: 12,858 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Hermione_Granger wrote: »
    Rubbish.
    You seem to have forgotten what the CRA states regarding faults that appear within 6 months from purchase
    AdrianC wrote: »
    And that's easy for them. The OP was driving around for north of a month before the sensor failed.
    Is it unreasonable for a sensor to fail without warning after 6yrs/70k? Absolutely not.
    So using that logic, I assume that if you bought something that failed after a couple of months and the seller told you that as it was okay for that length of time it must have been okay when sold and as there obviously isn't an inherent fault the problem must be down to either wear and tear or something that you did, you would be happy to accept this?

    Yes, it's a 6 year old car but there is nothing in the Consumer rights act that states the 6 month onus of proof doesn't apply to used goods.
    Hermione_Granger wrote: »
    Surely you know that an inherent fault is one that was there at the time of sale but not necessarily apparent

    Obviously not!
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    shaun_from_Africa wrote: »
    So using that logic, I assume that if you bought something that failed after a couple of months and the seller told you that as it was okay for that length of time it must have been okay when sold and as there obviously isn't an inherent fault the problem must be down to either wear and tear or something that you did, you would be happy to accept this?
    Yes, because it's quite simply the situation.

    Yes, it's a 6 year old car but there is nothing in the Consumer rights act that states the 6 month onus of proof doesn't apply to used goods.
    Except the supplier can show that the fault was not present.


    We come back to reasonable expectations for used goods of that age/type/apparent condition. Is it reasonable for a fault of this kind to occur on a 6yo/70k car? Yes.


    B'sides, if we're relying on consumer rights, remember that it's outside the 30 days, so there is no immediate right of rejection. They have a right to repair.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards