|
Hi guys,
Bit of a bad situation I'm in at the minute. Bought a vauxhall astra 05 plate from a local dealer on Friday. Drove it home and realised the heating wasn't working on the car. Checked the coolant levels and it was completely empty. Topped it up with anti-freeze and thought nothing more of it.
The next day set off in the car and realised that the coolant had gone, again! Topped it up with water and did a bit of searching on the internet to hear that it could be a damaged head gasket. A lot of the symtoms on the car I wasn't experiencing such as misfire but I checked the oil cap and it was completely covered in a white substance.
The past few days the car has been running out of coolant/water again and again within hours and I'm now starting to think that maybe, just maybe, I have been duped into buying a car from a dealer that does have a bad head gasket. The engine light has started rear its ugly head on the dash and I am getting quite a lot of misfires on the car.
I have my car booked in to see a mechanic tomorrow to diagnose the problem, the reason for this is because I don't want to send it back to the dealer who will check it in the garage and probably tell me there is nothing wrong! But I'm expecting the worst.
My question is, apparently the car comes with a 3 month warranty, if so will this cover head gasket problems? I can't see the head gasket breaking within the 1 day or so that I had the car. I only drove it no more than 2 miles up the road to discover that there was no coolant in the engine.
If they did try to say the warranty is void do I have any other legal standing? Has anybody else had any issues with buying a car from a dealer that just turns out to be a pile of garbage?
Its such a shame because the car itself has very low miles and actually looks in great condition! I just can't help but feel I have been made a fool of!
Thanks!
|
|
Your first contact should always be where you bought it - once 3rd parties are involved it gets messy.
Whilst any "warranty" or recourse on a 10 year old car is limited (it does not have to be perfect) a headgasket gone after a mile is clearly not fit for purpose unless it was sold as a non-runner.
It does sound like the headgasket has gone, tell the seller and ask for it to be repaired or refunded. There is no reason why it can't be fixed unless it has badly over heated so if it is a nice car otherwise may well be worth repairing. It is quite possible the seller didn't even know.
Edited by pd on 01/12/2015 at 20:08
|
|
|
|
Right. You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase. The garage can ASK to be allowed to have a look and see if they can fix it, but it is YOUR choice. The car is obviously not fit for purpose.
So take it back, quote the law to them, and demand your FULL refund. You will obviously have to stump up for the car tax that you've had, which unfortunately will straddle 2 months.
If they are awkward, hand them the keys, recording everything (sound and video on your phone) and declaring that you are rejecting the car under Consumer Rights Act 2015, the reason for rejection, and that, under the law, they are obliged to provide you with a full refund.
Basically, go in, make it very clear that you know the law and your rights, and they will almost certainly buckle. If they refuse, then go to CAB - sharpish.
|
Right. You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase. The garage can ASK to be allowed to have a look and see if they can fix it, but it is YOUR choice. The car is obviously not fit for purpose.
That isn't true. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to reject any car for any fault in the first 30 days. In fact that is rubbish.
You do have the right to reject one which makes it not fit for purpose or unsatisfactory for the age, miles and price. A headgasket is clearly that on pretty much any car.
However, if you thing you're going to be getting refunded on 10 year old cars because the CD player is skipping, the aircon is a bit iffy, the window is a bit slow or a bit of knocking suspension on a 110k mile car you're living in clould cuckoo land.
|
Right. You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase. The garage can ASK to be allowed to have a look and see if they can fix it, but it is YOUR choice. The car is obviously not fit for purpose.
That isn't true. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to reject any car for any fault in the first 30 days. In fact that is rubbish.
You do have the right to reject one which makes it not fit for purpose or unsatisfactory for the age, miles and price. A headgasket is clearly that on pretty much any car.
However, if you thing you're going to be getting refunded on 10 year old cars because the CD player is skipping, the aircon is a bit iffy, the window is a bit slow or a bit of knocking suspension on a 110k mile car you're living in clould cuckoo land.
I'd suggest you have a read of the CRA. And a slow electric window is not a fault unless it actually stops working, or is so slow as to be unusable in practice, and a knocking suspension component (as long as it passes the MOT) is not a fault, so those 2 in particular your argument falls apart instantly.
|
|
"You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to reject any car for any fault in the first 30 days. In fact that is rubbish."
You are way behind on this - New laws came in on 1st October -
Any fault in the first 30 days and the customer is in charge- it is their choice whether to have the seller repair it or demand a full refund - that's the new law.
|
"You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to reject any car for any fault in the first 30 days. In fact that is rubbish."
You are way behind on this - New laws came in on 1st October -
Any fault in the first 30 days and the customer is in charge- it is their choice whether to have the seller repair it or demand a full refund - that's the new law.
I'm well aware of the rules. What I take issue with is the "any fault in the first 30 days" which should read "any fault which renders the car not fit for purpose or unsatisfactory taking into acount the price, age and mileage and excluding fair wear and tear and anything which which would have been immediately apparent to the purchaser at point of purpose or anything which was pointed out to them."
If you want to post that then I fully agree - personally I think not adding the caveats is misleading and poor advice to post publically.
In this case discussed here I think the purchaser is entitled to a refund or repair as they prefer.
|
|
|
|
Right. You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase. The garage can ASK to be allowed to have a look and see if they can fix it, but it is YOUR choice. The car is obviously not fit for purpose.
That isn't true. You do not have an ABSOLUTE right to reject any car for any fault in the first 30 days. In fact that is rubbish.
You do have the right to reject one which makes it not fit for purpose or unsatisfactory for the age, miles and price. A headgasket is clearly that on pretty much any car.
However, if you thing you're going to be getting refunded on 10 year old cars because the CD player is skipping, the aircon is a bit iffy, the window is a bit slow or a bit of knocking suspension on a 110k mile car you're living in clould cuckoo land.
I'd suggest you have a read of the CRA. And a slow electric window is not a fault unless it actually stops working, or is so slow as to be unusable in practice, and a knocking suspension component (as long as it passes the MOT) is not a fault, so those 2 in particular your argument falls apart instantly.
Well, OK, so now you're choosing your own definition of "fault". I don't think a window not working either would come remotely close to refund territory even on a new car.
|
|
You cant just reject and demand a full refund for any fault on any car, thats a crazy notion. There are several conditions attatched to the CRA
Firstly the fault must render the vehicle to be not of satisfactory quality, not fit for purpose or not as described. Secondly any faults must not be of a nature one would expect relative to the age, condition and mileage of the vehicle. Thirdly its up to the buyer to prove the fault was present at the point of sale. These points must be able to stand up to legal scrutiny.
If the aircon packs up on your week old Focus then yes.....you have a case for short term rejection. If the aircon suddenly packs up on the 10 year old 80k Focus you bought 6 weeks ago you havent a hope in hell of getting anything back unless there is an element of goodwill involved.
Think about it....... if someone could buy an ageing vehicle, run it around for a month then take it back expecting a full refund for some minor fault the system would be widely and frauduently abused. You could in effect get a months free car hire....... every month.....for ever!
Edited by TedCrilly on 02/12/2015 at 00:45
|
You cant just reject and demand a full refund for any fault on any car, thats a crazy notion. There are several conditions attatched to the CRA
<Lots of sensible stuff>
Top post. Which is very different to:
" You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase"
The reason I taken issue with stuff such as above is that in 2 years time some poor sod with an iffy CD player on a £700 Fiesta will Google this. They'll read the above, take it at face value and maybe waste a load of time and money on a fruitless case because of something they read on the internet.
It is not fair and I doubt the poster of it will cough up any costs they incur after they lose spectacularly.
|
It is not fair and I doubt the poster of it will cough up any costs they incur after they lose spectacularly.
+1
|
|
There are numerous organistions and legal specialists that support ONLY motor traders, consequently these are not always in the public eye. This site.....
http://www.wmsgroupuk.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/
...explains the CRA in simple but great detail. I have spent a lot of time looking but nowhere does it say anything like.....
" You have an ABSOLUTE right, under the Consumer Rights Act, to reject it for ANY fault and receive a FULL refund, within 30 days of purchase. The garage can ASK to be allowed to have a look and see if they can fix it, but it is YOUR choice. The car is obviously not fit for purpose."
|
The OP should have taken the car back to the dealer straight away. He has either a right to a refund or a repair as the car is not fit for purpose. It's that simple really. Regardless of it's age, wear and tear etc. A car must be usable for the purpose of doing what it was designed for and safely.
A car that losses all it's coolant and overheats is simply not fit for purpose.
|
|
"Regardless of it's age, wear and tear etc. A car must be usable for the purpose of doing what it was designed for and safely"
Not true...cars and their components wear and consequntly fail with age. It is not unreasonable to expect this to happen and in the eyes of the law its accepted and considered.
Given the fact its not uncommon for 10 year old cars to suffer HGF, grounding for a refund on the not fit for purpose basis is very weak. It simply cannot be argued that it is unreasonable for HGF to occur given the vehicles age.
However given the fact the fault was almost certainly pre-existing prior to sale I dont think anyone familiar with the CRA could possibly disagreethat he has a right to a refund.
|
Well Mr Crilly, It is true. Go read for yourself "be fit for the purpose (for example, to get you from A to B safely)"
Go read the sale of goods act and the new consumer rights act.
|
|
Personally I think a headgasket failure is one of the more clear-cut examples.
Even on a relatively old car you don't, generally, expect a headgasket to fail through wear and tear.
The more difficult areas are things like clutches, or maybe a turbo. If a turbo fails after 25 days on a 150k mile car is it a fault or has the turbo just picked that moment to reach the end of it's typical life and that's just part of life with a 150k mile car and fair wear and tear?
It is cases like that where it gets difficult.
|
|
In the days when I had a succession of 'bangers' I always budgeted for having to replace within 6 months battery/radiator or part of the exhaust, as these seemed to be probable failures. Tyres could be visually checked but less easy to judge condition of the other items on a forecourt.
|
|
The OP said:
"Bought a vauxhall astra 05 plate from a local dealer on Friday. Drove it home and realised the heating wasn't working on the car. Checked the coolant levels and it was completely empty. Topped it up with anti-freeze and thought nothing more of it.
The next day set off in the car and realised that the coolant had gone, again! Topped it up with water and did a bit of searching on the internet to hear that it could be a damaged head gasket. A lot of the symtoms on the car I wasn't experiencing such as misfire but I checked the oil cap and it was completely covered in a white substance.
The past few days the car has been running out of coolant/water again and again within hours and I'm now starting to think that maybe, just maybe, I have been duped into buying a car from a dealer that does have a bad head gasket. The engine light has started rear its ugly head on the dash and I am getting quite a lot of misfires on the car."
Anyone think teh car was OK when sold? Nope . It was unfit when sold.. And any Court would agree.
NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. WHEN SOLD.
Only a garage owner would argue otherwise.
Edited by madf on 02/12/2015 at 17:53
|
|
I have read it, several times. I even provided a link which explains in simple terms how it lends itself to the new and used car market...... I will provide it again.
http://www.wmsgroupuk.com/the-consumer-rights-act-2015/
I will also highlight a few passages of particular interest from it...
The durability of a vehicle is down to the manufacturer in the design and use of quality materials, and as such a second hand dealership does not have control over these issues
Freedom from minor defects, which absolutely cannot apply to a used vehicle as only new models can be free from minor defects.
‘Second hand’ or ‘used’ clarifies that the product is not brand new and therefore it must be seen in that light, obviously dependent on age and mileage.
A consumer purchasing a three year old vehicle with 20,000 miles recorded would have very different expectations compared to if they were purchasing a 10 year old model with 100,000 miles.
True it does say the vehicle must be fit for purpose BUT it is also saying reasonable consideration can be made for age/mileage/condition. So if it was a brand new Astra that suffered a serious fault yes its not fit for purpose but can you realistically expect an 11 year old Astra to be as reliable as a brand new Astra?.....the answer is an obvious no.
The older a car becomes the more likely it is to fail in some way, its indisputable, and the CRA allows reasonable allowances and considerations to be made in light of the fact.
|
|
|
|
