Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • stevo90
    • By stevo90 6th Jul 18, 3:55 PM
    • 3Posts
    • 0Thanks
    stevo90
    rejecting car after 8 weeks
    • #1
    • 6th Jul 18, 3:55 PM
    rejecting car after 8 weeks 6th Jul 18 at 3:55 PM
    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
Page 1
    • ratrace
    • By ratrace 6th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    • 674 Posts
    • 458 Thanks
    ratrace
    • #2
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:04 PM
    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
    • By stevo90 6th Jul 18, 4:16 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    stevo90
    • #3
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:16 PM
    • #3
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:16 PM
    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
    • By Le_Kirk 6th Jul 18, 4:43 PM
    • 3,346 Posts
    • 2,297 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #4
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:43 PM
    • #4
    • 6th Jul 18, 4:43 PM
    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
    • By AdrianC 7th Jul 18, 9:25 AM
    • 19,088 Posts
    • 17,479 Thanks
    AdrianC
    • #5
    • 7th Jul 18, 9:25 AM
    • #5
    • 7th Jul 18, 9:25 AM
    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,
    Originally posted by stevo90
    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
    • By Hermione Granger 7th Jul 18, 10:19 AM
    • 922 Posts
    • 1,515 Thanks
    Hermione Granger
    • #6
    • 7th Jul 18, 10:19 AM
    • #6
    • 7th Jul 18, 10:19 AM
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    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
    • By AdrianC 7th Jul 18, 10:34 AM
    • 19,088 Posts
    • 17,479 Thanks
    AdrianC
    • #7
    • 7th Jul 18, 10:34 AM
    • #7
    • 7th Jul 18, 10:34 AM
    You seem to have forgotten what the CRA states regarding faults that appear within 6 months from purchase.
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    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
    • By unholyangel 7th Jul 18, 12:35 PM
    • 12,985 Posts
    • 10,293 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #8
    • 7th Jul 18, 12:35 PM
    • #8
    • 7th Jul 18, 12:35 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    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
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Ectophile
    • By Ectophile 7th Jul 18, 1:09 PM
    • 3,341 Posts
    • 2,147 Thanks
    Ectophile
    • #9
    • 7th Jul 18, 1:09 PM
    • #9
    • 7th Jul 18, 1:09 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC

    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
    • By shaun from Africa 7th Jul 18, 1:37 PM
    • 10,418 Posts
    • 11,750 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    Rubbish.
    You seem to have forgotten what the CRA states regarding faults that appear within 6 months from purchase
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    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.

    Surely you know that an inherent fault is one that was there at the time of sale but not necessarily apparent
    Originally posted by Hermione Granger
    Obviously not!
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 7th Jul 18, 1:40 PM
    • 19,088 Posts
    • 17,479 Thanks
    AdrianC
    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?
    Originally posted by shaun from Africa
    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.
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 7th Jul 18, 1:55 PM
    • 10,418 Posts
    • 11,750 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    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
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    so, they "have a right to repair" but earlier you stated that:
    so is all outside the remit of the CRA.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    So if as you believe, it's outside of the remit of the CRA, why would the seller have to repair the vehicle?

    Except the supplier can show that the fault was not present.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    And without examining the vehicle and determining what has failed and why it failed, how exactly can they show that there wasn't an inherent fault?
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 7th Jul 18, 2:40 PM
    • 12,985 Posts
    • 10,293 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Yes, because it's quite simply the situation.



    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    No, they can't. They can show the fault wasn't apparent at the time of sale. That doesn't mean it wasn't present.

    As for your last point, as the OP has already had a repair and the goods still fail to conform, he has the final right to reject. A retailer only gets 1 attempt at a repair now before the consumer has the right to reject the goods.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • arcon5
    • By arcon5 7th Jul 18, 9:14 PM
    • 13,630 Posts
    • 8,641 Thanks
    arcon5
    Could just be a dodgy battery
    • shaun from Africa
    • By shaun from Africa 7th Jul 18, 10:02 PM
    • 10,418 Posts
    • 11,750 Thanks
    shaun from Africa
    Could just be a dodgy battery
    Originally posted by arcon5
    The dealer has had the car for a week now and hasn't been able to work out what the problem is so if it was simply a duff battery and they couldn't suss this out, I definitely wouldn't trust them any further and would definitely want a full refund.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,734Posts Today

9,569Users online

Martin's Twitter