Cambelt snapped within 7 days from purchase
Comments
-
You really should care about what the dealer did wrong because if they haven't done anything wrong, your claim isn't going to be successful is it?
Under the Consumer RIGHTS Act 2015, the dealer can easily prove that the fault wasn't present at the time of the sale because simply, a car won't run without a functioning cam belt will it? That is enough to defeat your claim. They have no liability even within 30 days if they can prove that the fault wasn't there at the time of sale.
Is it really that that black and white? - if it can be proven that this was caused by a broken pulley or tensioner then of course there could have been a fault present at time of sale, it just hadnt shown itself.0 -
I think this is the main point - fault within first 30 days, everything else is irrelevant.
"Now, if you buy a product and discover a fault within 30 days you'll be entitled to a full refund," said Hannah Maundrell, the editor of money.co.uk. "The party really is over for retailers that try to argue the point."0 -
Not quite that simple.I think this is the main point - fault within first 30 days, everything else is irrelevant.
30 days only affects the restitution available.
The onus on proving liability only changes at 6 months.
The fault still has to be one that can't be reasonably expected, and was present at the time of sale.0 -
I think this is the main point - fault within first 30 days, everything else is irrelevant.
"Now, if you buy a product and discover a fault within 30 days you'll be entitled to a full refund," said Hannah Maundrell, the editor of money.co.uk. "The party really is over for retailers that try to argue the point."
I'm not sure why you appear to come across as cantankerous?
Your opening post touches the heart, 2 posts provide simple valid defence to your claim, then you kill the interest with the bit about losing power small children, wife had to call you for you call recovery?
8yr old car will come with 8yr old risks from any source.
There seems to be an element of fighting the dealer rather than getting the car repaired.:o0 -
I'm not sure why you appear to come across as cantankerous?
Your opening post touches the heart, 2 posts provide simple valid defence to your claim, then you kill the interest with the bit about losing power small children, wife had to call you for you call recovery?
8yr old car will come with 8yr old risks from any source.
There seems to be an element of fighting the dealer rather than getting the car repaired.:o
I don't want it repaired, I have seen many jobs like this go wrong, they will most likely attempt to get it done on cheap side, that will be my assumption. I want a refund, hence the thread asking if anyone has attempted to do so. I am not that interested in opinions on situation or my character, hope you understand.0 -
Once again...
IF the fault is agreed to have been present at the time of sale, and is agreed not to be reasonably expected for a low-end-priced 8yo 140k used car, then the fact that you're within 30 days means a refund.
But that's an IF.0 -
Not quite that simple.
30 days only affects the restitution available.
The onus on proving liability only changes at 6 months.
The fault still has to be one that can't be reasonably expected, and was present at the time of sale.
If I go to small claims, one of the points will be that if:
A) car wasn't faulty at the time, then where are my consumer rights with a £3500 product going wrong within 7 days from purchase? So the belt didn't needs doing as far as dealer is concerned.
if belt should have been changed, as far as dealer is concerned, then why didn't they change it prior to the sale or at least mention that it requires changing.
You guys keep saying it's a used car with lots of miles on the clock. I'm saying that the amount of damage that happened within first 7 days is unreasonable and I need to be compensated.0 -
-
It ran fine at the time of purchase.If I go to small claims, one of the points will be that if:
A) car wasn't faulty at the time
The belt was within schedule, according to the documented history - but that history is unverifiable.
They're there - but, as with everything, they're tempered by reasonable expectations for the age/price/type/apparent condition of the used goods being purchased.then where are my consumer rights with a £3500 product going wrong within 7 days from purchase?
The documented (but unverifiable) history certainly suggested it wasn't due for replacement for another ~10k/3yrs.So the belt didn't needs doing as far as dealer is concerned.
Yes, we know.You guys keep saying it's a used car with lots of miles on the clock. I'm saying that the amount of damage that happened within first 7 days is unreasonable and I need to be compensated.
And if the dealer don't agree, then you're going to have to ask a court to decide on who's right.
There's an established procedure for that - you physically reject the car, then if they don't refund you, you launch a claim for the money.
FWIW, I'm making no judgement whatsoever on whether you are right in that it's an unreasonable fault. But remember that you might have only owned it 7 days, but it's an 8yo 140k car. The applicable legal test is whether it's reasonable to expect a cambelt on an 8yo/140k/low-end-price car to fail, when there is unverifiable documentation suggesting it was replaced 3yrs/50k ago. The 7 days only comes into it when it comes to the burden of proof as to whether the fault was present (<6mo) and whether the supplier has to refund or can repair (<30 days).0 -
It ran fine at the time of purchase.
The belt was within schedule, according to the documented history - but that history is unverifiable.
They're there - but, as with everything, they're tempered by reasonable expectations for the age/price/type/apparent condition of the used goods being purchased.
The documented (but unverifiable) history certainly suggested it wasn't due for replacement for another ~10k/3yrs.
Yes, we know.
And if the dealer don't agree, then you're going to have to ask a court to decide on who's right.
There's an established procedure for that - you physically reject the car, then if they don't refund you, you launch a claim for the money.
FWIW, I'm making no judgement whatsoever on whether you are right in that it's an unreasonable fault. But remember that you might have only owned it 7 days, but it's an 8yo 140k car. The applicable legal test is whether it's reasonable to expect a cambelt on an 8yo/140k/low-end-price car to fail, when there is unverifiable documentation suggesting it was replaced 3yrs/50k ago. The 7 days only comes into it when it comes to the burden of proof as to whether the fault was present (<6mo) and whether the supplier has to refund or can repair (<30 days).
Noted. Thanks.
Just to add, I bought it using a credit card.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards