|
Hi Scott , I think you may have a better opportunity to recover the cost of your repairs than perhaps you would expect . A recent post on this forum by Dwight van Driver ,explained about a land rover discovery that had developed a faulty gearbox about three months after purchase . The new owner of the discovery simply had the gearbox repaired and sent the selling dealer a bill for the repair ,he didn't ask for the dealers permission to have the repair done . Not surprisingly the dealer said he wouldn't pay as the first he knew of the repair was when he received the invoice for the repair which I think was for £2800. The case went to court and the car dealer lost ,the judge ruled that a private buyer ,like you ,couldn't be expected to know that he should give a dealer the opportunity to repair a car before having it repaired himself .There was a link on the forum to the actual case details .
Edited by Avant on 02/03/2013 at 22:34
|
Hi Scott , I think you may have a better opportunity to recover the cost of your repairs than perhaps you would expect . A recent post on this forum by Dwight van Driver ,explained about a land rover discovery that had developed a faulty gearbox about three months after purchase . The new owner of the discovery simply had the gearbox repaired and sent the selling dealer a bill for the repair ,he didn't ask for the dealers permission to have the repair done . Not surprisingly the dealer said he wouldn't pay as the first he knew of the repair was when he received the invoice for the repair which I think was for £2800. The case went to court and the car dealer lost ,the judge ruled that a private buyer ,like you ,couldn't be expected to know that he should give a dealer the opportunity to repair a car before having it repaired himself .There was a link on the forum to the actual case details .
That particular case was a unique one and the full story was never really explained. It wasn't as clear cut as you make out and involved a simultenous claim for rejection. If it was, it would apply to anything, and when your 3 month old tv goes wrong you could simply get anyone to fix it and send Currys the bill. As we all know, you can't.
I never understand why people think cars are so different. When your 6 month old dishwasher goes wrong who do you contact? The place you bought it or some random third party?
Edited by pd on 03/03/2013 at 00:17
|
|
Just to add to my previous reply, in the case of the oft quoted Bowes v Richardson, the owner HAD informed the seller of the faults NUMEROUS times and it ended in an argument over rejection. The car HAD BEEN BACK TO THE SELLER and they had failed to fix them. It was not the case that they simply got the repairs done without first recourse to the seller. In the end the buyer ran out of patience and then got the repairs done, after rejecting the car, the seller refusing rejection after failing to fix it after numerous attempts. It should also be noted, that the buyer won the case pretty much by default as the seller failed to enter a proper defence.
No one should take that particular case as meaning a buyer can just get any old person to fix a car without contacting the seller and then bill them. That is not what happened in that case. It is available online if you google it. It was also on a brand new car, not a 9 year old BMW.
The Land Rover case was a different one and seems to often get confused with the above.
Edited by pd on 03/03/2013 at 00:35
|
(The Land Rover case was a different one and seems to often get confused with the above.)
Hi can you provide a link to the land rover case ,that DVD provided ,so the forum can read it again .
|
(The Land Rover case was a different one and seems to often get confused with the above.) Hi can you provide a link to the land rover case ,that DVD provided ,so the forum can read it again .
The full story is reproduced in Honest John's FAQ's no.4 "Consumer Rights" click the Ask HJ tab at the top of this page.
The case was in the Small Claims Court so the outcome is not binding and can't be taken as "Case Law"
My view is that the 6 months SOGA simply puts the onus on the dealer to prove the fault was not present at the time of sale - rather than the buyer having to prove it was....but as stated in the thread as a car gets older it's unreasonable to expect it to be perfect, in this case it's an 8 year old car with 85000 miles and the price paid was probably less than 25% of it's original new price. A Small Claims Court could possibly decide it was normal wear and tear for these components to need replacement after 8 years? Where does it stop ? Clearly you wouldn't return a car after 5 months saying the tyres need replacing but other components wear too and if left unattended will "fail" when completely worn out. Had the OP had the car serviced for example?I If the dealer makes a contribution that's probably a fair result (in my opinion).
|
|
In my experience of if/when these claims get to court the person presiding is frequently of the kind and age group who still changes their car every 2 years 20,000 miles because after that "they get old and unreliable". They are frequently kind of amazed that a car is still going at 60,000 miles let alone 80k or 100k at all let alone anyone would buy one.
jacks is perfectly correct that a car only has to work AT THE POINT OF SALE. Any faults which subsequently develop are not the responsibility of the seller. The only difference is that in the first 6 months the onous is on the seller to prove it was OK at the point of sale.
Obviously, the longer a customer has owned and driven the car the easier it is for the seller to demonstrate the car was OK when sold. It is pretty rediculous, for example, for a buyer to argue that if they've done 5000 miles and 3 months use in a car without complaint and now the gearbox has gone wrong the gearbox wasn't working then they bought it.
The vast majority if succesful arguments under the SoGA are on very new cars or where a problem becomes apparent very soon after purchase in which case it is far more difficult for the seller to argue there wasn't a problem 24 hours earlier when they sold it. Dealers make cotributions and help customers 99% of the time to protect their reputation and keep customers happy rather than worrying about sale of goods act. Contrary to public understanding a lot of dealers take their reputation seriously and rely on word of mouth for customers.
Going back to this particular case an unrelated alternator, turbo and starter motor failure all at the same time is a one in a million chance so there is more to it than simply that and no wonder the supplying dealer wants to know what the hell has gone on.
|
|
Regarding the Land Rover case, that case is Barnes v McGrath. HJ's FAQ on this is muddling and incorrect as it refers to both an engine failure and gearbox failure (it wasn't both) and, indeed, if you research it you can find two different stories so I suspect the facts of this case have not (including here) been quite reported correctly.
The actual case doesn't seem available on line.
|
|
I take no sides in this matter but I strongly suggest you read and read properly the SOGA.
|
I take no sides in this matter but I strongly suggest you read and read properly the SOGA.
Yes, but when anyone reads it, you have to read it applying to new goods and then try and interpret it for part worn ones. That is where it is a grey area - it is written with new goods in mind.
Alternator goes wrong at 10,000 miles. Anyone would think a manufacturing defect and unacceptable. Alternator goes wrong at 92,000 miles, well, it has probably done its job. The fact that the current owner bought it when it had done 88000 does not make it any more of a manufacturing defect.
I have to work with it day in, day out, not in the fantasy world of the internet so have experienced it from reality and real legal basis.
|
The fact that the current owner bought it when it had done 88000 does not make it any more of a manufacturing defect.
The situation is complicated by the fact that the buyer bought a car, not an alternator. If the alternator fails, then the car does not work at all (unlike say a failed A/C compressor).
|
I take no sides in this matter but I strongly suggest you read and read properly the SOGA.
Yes, but when anyone reads it, you have to read it applying to new goods and then try and interpret it for part worn ones. That is where it is a grey area - it is written with new goods in mind.
Alternator goes wrong at 10,000 miles. Anyone would think a manufacturing defect and unacceptable. Alternator goes wrong at 92,000 miles, well, it has probably done its job. The fact that the current owner bought it when it had done 88000 does not make it any more of a manufacturing defect.
I have to work with it day in, day out, not in the fantasy world of the internet so have experienced it from reality and real legal basis.
No you do not have to interpret anything the act is quite clear you have either not read it all or jumped about picking what you think is relevant.
|
No you do not have to interpret anything the act is quite clear you have either not read it all or jumped about picking what you think is relevant.
It is not clear because no two used products are the same.
The act may be clear but how that applies is not because there are no real guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not.
No two used cars and no two sales are the same therefore in each case it is different.
Believe me some clearly written guidelines would delight the used car trade - as it is - it is all pie in the sky stuff with no one, buyer or seller, ever knowing where they stand.
|
|
You have not read the act or understood the parts you have read,It does not matter a hoot whether cars are the same or have different faults or what the faults are.The act is very clear and is easily understood by laypeople its one of the most clear acts in the UK ,as a retailer of a product you will be judged liable unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt the fault occured and the fault did not start until after you sold it,an impossible task so that is why the courts find in the plaintiffs favour in 99% of times.Whether its fair or not is a different matter the act exists and until its changed you must abide by it.
|
You have not read the act or understood the parts you have read,It does not matter a hoot whether cars are the same or have different faults or what the faults are.The act is very clear and is easily understood by laypeople its one of the most clear acts in the UK ,as a retailer of a product you will be judged liable unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt the fault occured and the fault did not start until after you sold it,an impossible task so that is why the courts find in the plaintiffs favour in 99% of times.Whether its fair or not is a different matter the act exists and until its changed you must abide by it.
If that were the case there would be no used car sold for under £10,000.
A used car does not need to be "faultless" and it does not need to necessarily work for very long. The act also says in its guidelines it is accepted a used product will be less good, less reliable and have more faults than a new one on a sliding scale. The question is what is "acceptable" in terms of how inferior, unreliable and full of faults a used product should be, i.e. exactly what is that sliding scale.
A £500 banger does not even need to last 6 months, probably only 1-2 weeks. It is a car for the price of a return train ticket from London to Manchester so why does it need to last any longer?
You are misleading people into thinking they can buy any old rubbish car for any old price and get a perfect one. They can't.
It is not impossible to prove a fault did not start after sale if the car has been used for some time and some miles after sale (if it was so faulty, how comes it was OK to use?). Most of the cases on SoGA concern cars where a dealer has sold a car with a fault and it has become apparent very soon after purchase (i.e. they have basically stitched the buyer up).
|
(A COURT case could have a major impact on dealers’ rights if they sell a car which goes wrong – if an appeal fails.
The case – Barnes v McGrath – was heard in Evesham County Court on December 6 and concerns the rights of a dealer to be informed of, examine and undertake repairs himself or at his expense if a car breaks down after sale.
In this case the judge ruled that even though the selling dealer, Sean McGrath, had not been made aware of any fault until FOUR months after purchase and THREE months after the repairs had been completed he was STILL liable to pay the buyer’s bill – plus £443 court costs!
The buyer had instructed another garage to fit the replacement engine at a cost of £2710.73…)
The above is an excerpt from the actual court case that Dwite van driver had posted previously .
It was heard in a county court ,so will set a presedent ,it seems to go against natural justice to me ! .But then I've always thought the legal system was biased against car dealers .
It's not an issue but the repair involved an engine not a gearbox as I first thought .
|
|
But did this perverse decision not hinge on the technicality that the dealer did not outline his returns policy? ie the magistrate only ruled in the plaintiff's favour because the dealer did not explicitly say what should the buyer should do in the event of a fault.
Pretty perverse decision, nevertheless, and not case law because it is only a county court. The Buyer was awarded £2800 for a gearbox, WITHOUT A RECEIPT or old gear box!
|
|
|
(That particular case was a unique one and the full story was never really explained. It wasn't as clear cut as you make out and involved a simultenous claim for rejection. If it was, it would apply to anything, and when your 3 month old tv goes wrong you could simply get anyone to fix it and send Currys the bill. As we all know, you can't.)
Sorry your wrong ,see the post below.
|
|
|
|
|
