Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago

Honest John Back Room » Motoring discussion
View Threaded
Sat 15 Sep 2012 22:49
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bigjohnno

Hi

I bought a 52 plate Rover 25 at the end of july, from a local dealer, with no warranty: Although i was issued a 12 month MoT certificate. it had 38000 on the clock.

About 4 weeks after purchase, having driven less than 500 miles, the cambelt snapped and has caused a large degree of damage to the engine. It is currently being assesed at my local garage.

Because it was sold without a warranty, do I effectively have a 'leg to stand on' with regards to the dealer who sold it to me?

Many thanks

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 15 Sep 2012 23:21
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - tony g
Hi,
Sorry to say that because the cars 10 years old you can't expect a warranty of any value .

A cambelt is a serviceable item that can fail at any time ,very few warranties would cover it , even on a newer car .

The dealer will probably refuse to pay for any repairs ,but you should ask him just in case .
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sat 15 Sep 2012 23:35
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - unthrottled

I have to agree with Tony, but I have a lot of sympathy. The cambelt ws probably never changed because of the low mileage, but cam belts have an age replacement interval as well as a mileage interval and it should have been changed. Very bad luck.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 12:36
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - sb10

When you go for a secondhand car like the rover,one of the first questions should be has the cambelt been replaced or is it due,personally I fit a new one anyway I know its done then, but you would be surprised how many dont even think to ask

Its no help now I know but change interval on 25 is 90K OR 6 years,I prefer the 200 change which is 60k OR 5 years

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 12:53
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - Mike H

No-one has mentioned your rights under current legislation (Sale of Goods Act?). I'd be contacting local Trading Standards office tomorrow. It may be, due to the age of the car, that you get nowhere, but it costs nothing to bounce it off them. It is no defence on the dealer's part for him to be unaware there was a problem. You have effectively a three-month guarantee under current legislation, but it does depend on how much you paid, mileage, age etc, but it's worth a few minutes on the phone to check your chance of claiming.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 13:04
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - unthrottled

You'll have a hard job claiming that you drove the car off the forcecourt with a broken cambelt!

SoGA is not a warranty, it only covers faults present at the point of sale.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 17:54
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bonzo dog

As a retail customer this fault will almost certainly be covered under Sale Of Goods.

Ask the dealer for a full refund & if he refuses go legal.

I'm of the opinion that you will almost ceratinly win.

Good luck

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 18:05
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - Armitage Shanks {p}

I suggest that the failure, on a 10 year old car, of an invisible component not subject to the MOT test is completely unpredictable and any action, legal or otherwise, will fail. Was there a service record showing the the belt had been changed on schedule? Even if there was it would not help much IMO. A dealer has to show that a fault was not present at the point of sale; clearly as the car was dfriven off the forecourt and managed 500 miles the fault was not present at that time.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 18:06
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - unthrottled

If the overdue cambelt change is classified as a fault then yes. I'm not at all sure that it is.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 20:11
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - Armitage Shanks {p}

I think it would be regarded as an omission, not a fault.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 21:16
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - barney100

Sorry to hear that story. You can get some advice off the trading standards web site.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Sun 16 Sep 2012 23:10
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - tony g
If the dealer had stated that the rover had a recent cambelt change ,alternatively if the car was bought with a service history that showed a cambelt change being done recently ,then the op may have a case .

It could then be argued that the purchaser was persuaded to complete the sale because it had a cambelt replaced .

Without that the op has little chance of redress .
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 17 Sep 2012 11:25
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - madf

"I bought a 52 plate Rover 25 at the end of july, from a local dealer, with no warranty: Although i was issued a 12 month MoT certificate. it had 38000 on the clock."

Sale of Goods Act applies.

I assume you would NOT have bought it if it had say 60,000 miles. The delaer warranty is immatreial.

To fail after 4 weeks and 500 miles says the fault was present when sold. Therfore the dealer is liable.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 17 Sep 2012 12:29
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - 72 dudes

AFAIK Sale of Goods Act uses the questions:

1). Was the product of satisfactory quality when purchased?

2). Was the product in the sort of condition a reasonable person would expect (with regard to age and mileage)?

3). Was the fault present at purchase?

1. - Yes.

2. - This is going to depend on whether there was service history, paperwork showing cambelt changed at x years, x mileage. Did the dealer imply a cambelt change was NOT needed because of the low mileage? Did he tell you a cambelt change HAD been done? DId you do any work to contact previous owners or garages who had serviced it? Was the price paid below/above market value?

3. - Almost impossible to prove either way, a cambelt can go suddenly.

On balance, I would say, good luck, try everything you can but this may just be a case of caveat emptor - buyer beware.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 17 Sep 2012 13:50
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - madf

. - Almost impossible to prove either way, a cambelt can go suddenly.

hmm...

Cambelts go becuase they have been subjected to abuse or not changed on time..

I suspect the belt may be the original.. it which case it was original when sold and therfore NOT of saleable quality ...due to age.. No-one warrants belts for 10 years...

So if it was original the garage are liable. due to age.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Mon 17 Sep 2012 17:57
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - tyro

Some of the house experts say "yes", some say "no". Being no expert, I have no idea, though I must confess that I'd be a little pessimistic.

As has been said, you might have a strong case if you can show (according to the manufacturer's service schedule) that the cambelt should have been changed, but that this had not been done. A quick Google indicates that it should be changed every 6 years. If the cambelt that snapped was over 6 years old, it is worth pursuing the matter, and arguing that the dealer should have put in a new cambelt before selling it. If it was under 6 years old, you probably haven't a hope.

If you do pursue the matter, please let us know what the outcome is!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 08:52
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bonzo dog

AFAIK Sale of Goods Act uses the questions:

1). Was the product of satisfactory quality when purchased?

2). Was the product in the sort of condition a reasonable person would expect (with regard to age and mileage)?

3). Was the fault present at purchase?

4 - If the fault develops within 6 months of ownership then the fault is deemed to have been present at purchase unless the retailer can proove that it wasn't.

Now don't shout at me saying this should not be the case; I didn't write the law.

In this case (as all others) it is down to the court to decide if the seller is able to prove the fault was not present but given the timescale my belief is that the court would presume that the cambelt was probably on its way out at time of sale even though it had not actually failed.

If the OP goes to court, if the dealer fails to convince the court or (which is more than likely) fails to present any defence, then the court will find in the OP's favour

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 09:39
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - Armitage Shanks {p}

To be exact, the fault was NOT present at the time of purchase as the car was driven away without a problem. What was there was, perhaps, the potential for failure. Is it really part of a dealer's duty of care to a customer to check the service history (if available) for ommisions? Perhaps the customer should check it, if there is one.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 09:42
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - madf

To be exact, the fault was NOT present at the time of purchase as the car was driven away without a problem. What was there was, perhaps, the potential for failure. Is it really part of a dealer's duty of care to a customer to check the service history (if available) for ommisions? Perhaps the customer should check it, if there is one.

Any car dealer is presumed in law to know how cars works. By definityion that includes cambelts and the damage they do when breaking and the need to replace them.

The car was 10 years old.

No case for defence: slam dunk.

(Ask yourslef: why do cars often for sale include the words "cambelt changed" as a sales point if the salesmen don't know?)

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 11:27
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - Armitage Shanks {p}

You haven't really addressed my points re service history, if there even was one. In the absence of one how is a dealer meant to know if the belt was due or had ever been changed?AS OP hasn't beenback since day 1 I don't think we shall have hear how it worked out for him

10 year old car and a Rover, if it hadn't been the cambelt it would have been the headgasket!

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 13:35
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bonzo dog

You haven't really addressed my points re service history, if there even was one. In the absence of one how is a dealer meant to know if the belt was due or had ever been changed

It is down to the retailer to ensure that the vehicle is in working order & (effectively) that it remains so for 6 months, not the customer.

In the absence of history the dealer has the choice to either change the belt or not.

If he chooses the latter & nothing goes wrong then both dealer & customer are happy; if it snaps then the retailer is liable.

If he changes the belt & it subsequently snaps then he has the defence that the belt was clearly not faulty at purchase.

Edited by bonzo dog on 19/09/2012 at 13:38

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 14:20
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - unthrottled

It is down to the retailer to ensure that the vehicle is in working order & (effectively) that it remains so for 6 months, not the customer.

No it isn't. That would be a 6 month warranty. The 6 month rule is based on the assumption that a fault is latent for a period of time prior to catastrophic failure.

With a timing belt, the situation is very murky. The timing belt was indeed beyond its design life-but , arguably, so was the entire car.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 15:57
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bonzo dog

The 6 month rule is based on the assumption that a fault is latent for a period of time prior to catastrophic failure.

Well I never drafted the law so whether you are correct or not, the law states:

Where faulty goods are returned within the first six months of purchase, the consumer has the benefit of a presumption that the goods were faulty when delivered (i.e. the consumer will be entitled to a remedy). If the retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale.

Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Wed 19 Sep 2012 13:40
Rover 25 - Used car cambelt fail - bought 4 weeks ago - bonzo dog

10 year old car and a Rover, if it hadn't been the cambelt it would have been the headgasket!

In which case the retailer would have been liable for the repairs caused by the failed head gasket

Reply | Report as offensive | Link

Looking for a garage you can trust? Honest John's Good Garage Guide has thousands of reader recommended garages, plus how-to guides and tips on servicing.

The Good Garage Guide