I think people here would question the assumption of the CAB that you are entitled to a fault free vehicle. As far as I understand it, the vehicle is still working and therefore usable, if not in perfect condition. When you buy a thirteen year old car, you do not have a right to one in the same condition as it was when it left the factory.
Can the OP tell us if he spoke to the CA Consumer line on 0345 04 05 06 or to his local CA?
I'm surprised the advice regarding a car of this age was not more nuanced around age/legitimate expectation etc.
Go to the Citizens Advice website and the introductory page specifically says you won't be entitled to repair/money back in a number of circumstances including a fault that is normal for how much the car has been used. While the example quoted is brake pads I would expect that to extend to other common issues with older cars including oil drips. You might try and argue that leaking fuel, if it's petrol, is a fire risk and car is not fit for purpose. Even then I think you'd be on a sticky wicket in front of a small claims judge.
Bottom line is it's 13years old.
I suppose that one of the defining things here would be to ask whether a) certain parts on a car that don't require maintenance, such as the fuel tank should be designed to last the lifespan of the vehicle, and b) what IS the defined lifespan of the vehicle?
That second question would be hard to answer, as it would depend upon what anyone defines as 'the vehicle' - everything, the structural elements, that plus the engine block, and part of the car that is never part of a service schedule? Given that the longest warranty on a car is now 7 years and some have longer anti-perforation warranties, that might be a starting point, but they don't cover everything.
HJ regularly mentions cars being designed for a 'economic life' of 7 years, I regularly read about the EU and Aussie laws about products being of 'saleable quality' for up to 6 years (i.e. free of manufacturing defects), but over 10, and especially 13?
To me, that's more than pushing things, though I agree that the car should not experience any major (expensive) failures within 6 months of the purchase, or at least the seller should be in a position to tell the prosepective buyer of any major concerns over components that could fail and that would refelect a far lower price paid.
I suppose this is why having such an older car inspected by a trusted independent professional mechanic can be worthwhile, especially for cars that originally cost a lot of money or are 'classic' and thus parts/maintenance work are expensive.
I wholeheardely agree with those who've said that taking on an old 'premium/sports' make/model of car on a tight budget is a very risky move, especially when there's little in the way of budget for replacing worn/failed parts. Unfortunately, 'premium' often does not equal 'highest engineering quality'. Such cars need a good deal of (OEM) TLC, which doesn't come cheap. One of the first things I read up on a car that I like is the HJ Good & Bad section, because it shows what could be coming my way down the road if I bought one, even if it was well maintained.
No harm in the OP trying to get some recompence (especially if the fuel leak from the tank is significant) from the selling dealer/warranty supplier, but in the end they may have to bite the bullet and accept they aren't going to win (at least to get more than a partial contribution to the repair costs) on this one and chalk it up to experience.
|
