# Anyone know about consumer rights in the motor trade?



## Reasty (Feb 6, 2015)

Ok so need some advice but it's a long story so I'm going to condense it.
End of July I bought the mrs a smart car 450 brabus 04 plate from a garage,went to check the car over,drove it,had full service history and only 43k on the clock did a check and everything absolutely fine (I'm not a chump I know about cars) 
So bought the car for 2 grand,drove it home all fine she drove it at that weekend all fine,then the week after it cut out whilst driving,its auto so this should not happen,we thought nothing of it at first so continued using the car,over the next two weeks the car cut out at least once on every journey,so we take it to the smart specialist in Guildford and they plug the car in and no codes come back,so all looks fine except it's not fine so the car goes back to the smart specialist where it has now been for nearly a month,turns out the car needs a new Sam unit which is basically the fuse box (common problem in these cars so I now know after reading etc) so we are now looking at £700 to get it fixed,I phoned the garage and they have offered to pay £250 towards the bill but my Mrs wants them to pay all of it,now the problem is because it's an electrical fault it is not covered by the warranty,we have now had the car for over 30 days so can't return it and because the problem is intermittent with no log in the Ecu I cannot prove there was a problem before I Drove the car off the forecourt,is there anything I can do as this just doesn't seem fair at all,we had the car maybe 2 weeks and it's spent the rest of the time sat in Guildford broken.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Sounds like you are entitled to the full cost of repair as it's a dealer of cars as opposed to private sale. If the fault was there from the start you have 30 days to reject it. If it's beyond 30 days but you think the fault was there from when you bought it - up to six months later - it's the responsibility of the seller to prove that the fault was NOT present - Not yours to prove it was. So you should be Ok to demand they pay the full cost. If the repair is unsuccessful you can demand a refund but the garage can deduct "fair use" but in your case they seem to have had it most of the time!

Citizens above can help you further. Always get proper advice. The legislation is the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which replaced the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and several other pieces of consumer related legislation.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

While I agree with johns post in principal, the law doesn't give you a defacto 6 month warranty. You can't just rock up to the dealer with any fault that occurs at any time in the first 6 months and demand a repair. The age, mileage and value of the vehicle are also a factor and it comes down to the 'reasonableness' of the claim - it's not reasonable to expect the same reliability from a 13 year old car as you would a 3 year old model, for example.

So, I think it's more of a grey area than John says. Personally (and I'm speaking as someone who has successfully returned a 2nd hand car with a fault) I think a goodwill contribution is a reasonable response from the dealer. I'd be inclined to haggle it up a bit, but I wouldn't be convinced a judge would force them to pay the full amount given all the facts.


----------



## ashfinlayson (Oct 26, 2013)

30 days has gone now but did you at least report that there was a problem to the dealer within 30 days of purchase? If so, you've got all the ammunition you need to return it for repair/replacement/refund


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> While I agree with johns post in principal, the law doesn't give you a defacto 6 month warranty. You can't just rock up to the dealer with any fault that occurs at any time in the first 6 months and demand a repair. The age, mileage and value of the vehicle are also a factor and it comes down to the 'reasonableness' of the claim - it's not reasonable to expect the same reliability from a 13 year old car as you would a 3 year old model, for example.
> 
> So, I think it's more of a grey area than John says. Personally (and I'm speaking as someone who has successfully returned a 2nd hand car with a fault) I think a goodwill contribution is a reasonable response from the dealer. I'd be inclined to haggle it up a bit, but I wouldn't be convinced a judge would force them to pay the full amount given all the facts.


There is an expectation of reasonableness regarding satisfactory quality, taking into account the age and condition of the vehicle, but the vehicle must also be fit for purpose such as getting you from A to B which it can reasonably be argued was NOT the case because it kept cutting out. This can also be regarded as a dangerous condition e.g. if it happens in the third lane of the motorway.


----------



## Shug750S (Feb 6, 2012)

ashfinlayson said:


> 30 days has gone now but did you at least report that there was a problem to the dealer within 30 days of purchase? If so, you've got all the ammunition you need to return it for repair/replacement/refund


As above.

If you notified dealer within the 30 days then get it back to him for repair. Otherwise too late.

Sorry...


----------



## Reasty (Feb 6, 2015)

Thankyou for the responses,im going to see if i can get atleast half of the cost of the repair as see what happens.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

This link helps explain:

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/ad ... -buy-a-car



> If a defect is found after 30 days, but within six months, buyers are entitled to request a repair, replacement or refund. The law assumes the fault was there at the time of delivery, unless the seller can prove it wasn't.


The time limit in the act regarding 30 days is in relation to rejecting the goods for a full refund. In your case you found the fault within 30 days and didn't reject so you've lost your right to "early rejection" but your right to repair stands within the first six months and you don't need to prove anything - it's up to the seller to prove the fault wasn't there. In fact the garage have one attempt to repair at their cost and if that fails you then have a renewed right of rejection for refund, less in the case of motor vehicles, a deduction for fair use.

However, you need to give the garage the chance to repair as it complicates the issue involving a third party repairer as the law stipulates giving the retailer the opportunity to repair - not a third party who will want their own profit margin etc. What's the bill so far with the specialist repairer? Is it low enough to walk away back to the garage? This may be why they have only given you a low offer.

The threat of coming back to the garage with the law behind you may make them up their offer.

Get some legal advice if in doubt. Citizens above is a good starting point but many solicitors offer free initial consultation, often over the phone.

Being clued up goes a long way when complaining :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

But what must the garage do to prove it John? Technically, it's impossible for any garage to prove that a fault wasn't there at the time of sale, so presumably there must be a 'reasonableness test' there too. Unless of course you believe whoever drafted that law wanted to ensure that any fault found within the first six months had to be fixed but, purely for the fun of it, thought they'd pose an impossible challenge to tease the dealer and encourage them to waste money on unwinnable court cases.

I suspect a judge would have to look at each case and determine a reasonable level of inspection/testing that he believes was enough cast doubt on the existence of the fault at that time. The OP says it happens once on every journey, so how many times do you think the dealer would have say he drove it without issue in order to convince a judge it was ok before they sold it?

Don't get me wrong, it might be worth trying a threatening letter making it clear you know your rights under the consumer protection act, but I personally wouldn't be taking this to court and my concern would be that if I laid it on too thick with the threats, the good will offer might disappear.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Reasonableness still applies ultimately with a judge of course. The newer legislation was meant to simplify the process to resolution and remove ambiguity with different time limits being assumed for different products which applied under the Sale of Goods Act such as how long you might expect a hair drier to last as opposed to a pair of dress shoes for example. Now it's simplified but there are still exceptions for perishable goods, digital good and motor vehicles for example.

For the garage to reasonably prove the fault didn't exist they may have a rigorous and well documented pre-sale test and check record but it may be difficult in the case of an intermittent fault especially if they didn't drive it for any distance. But we know it had the fault according to the OP and he took it to a specialist who could be witness, so it sounds like the garage would find it difficult to avoid responsibility for what appears to have been apre-existing fault - which is the laws presumption.

The good will offer is towards the cost of repair with a third party which is outside the obligation placed on the garage by the Consumer Rights Act, unless agreed with the OP and that's what they may be trying to achieve as a lower cost to them and hoping the OP doesn't simply return it and say it's your problem please sort it out. In which case there's no need for a "good will" gesture, the garage simply has a legal obligation unless they want to waste time and money going to court over something they are likely to lose - in my ley opinion.

It's up to the OP to work out the best route after getting proper legal advice. I'm sure we could argue the rights and wrongs of the Act for many more pages of posts :wink:


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

John-H said:


> But we know it had the fault according to the OP and he took it to a specialist who could be witness, so it sounds like the garage would find it difficult to avoid responsibility for what appears to have been apre-existing fault - which is the laws presumption.


*We* know it had a fault when he bought it because we believe the OPs story - however it seems it was at least 3 weeks later that they took it for a diagnostic scan, which presumably is the first point at which an independent witness would confirm there was an issue (or at least confirm that was the point when the OP claimed there was an issue, as the scan showed nothing).

There are a lot of unknowns, the largest being the level of proof required by a judge. I think "unlikely to lose" is a bit of a leap given that you genuinely have no idea what the courts do in these sorts of circumstances. My reasoning for accepting a goodwill offer is that it's isn't a gamble. Obviously it's the OPs choice, but I don't think it helps to present this as a slam dunk.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, Try to get full cost of repair obviously, but otherwise, I would accept the best goodwill payment you can get.
Tha dealer could have scanned for faults & as OP found nothing, driven the car for week & as OP no probs.
13 years old & £2k accept the best deal you can get.
Hoggy.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> > But we know it had the fault according to the OP and he took it to a specialist who could be witness, so it sounds like the garage would find it difficult to avoid responsibility for what appears to have been apre-existing fault - which is the laws presumption.
> ...


As I said, the goodwill gesture to third party costs has nothing to do with the garage's own responsibility as the law presumes the fault was there and they must pay, unless the garage can prove otherwise.

The OP can ask the garage to repair it at their expense - they can either agree or refuse and risk the OP taking it further which could be a legal letter to them stating the case and showing they know their rights, involving trading standards or actually taking then to small claims. The first thing I would do is say to the garage that you think it best to bring it back to them for repair. That they suould be given the opportunity under the Consumer Rights Act. See what they say to that.

Usually these things involve facing down the supplier and not letting yourself be pushed around if you know you are correct. The garage are unlikely to want to get involved with the cost of the consequences unless they are very sure, which seems unlikely given the *onus* of proof and the nature of the fault.

If you accept less than what you are entitled to then that's your choice. Being fully informed rather than taking advice from people arguing the rights and wrongs on an internet forum is precisely why I suggest the OP should get some independent legal advice from legally trained individuals but hopefully the points raised here (unprofessionally) at least provide some background as to the issues involved.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Yes, I understand the goodwill gesture is outside their legal responsibility - hence the name. But because of that it's also an offer that can be withdrawn at any time so if you chose to exercise your rights and go to court, and if you lose, you're not going to be getting any more goodwill offers.

So, whilst 'facing down the supplier' may well work, they might also call your bluff by withdrawing the goodwill offer and telling you to go to court. Then you're left with two unpleasant options and no guarantees.

As I said, it's a gamble, and the OP might think it's totally worth the risk, but it's not fair on them to frame this as an easy win.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

As I said get some legal advice rather than listen to people who argue on tinternet but at least you know the references to law and on whom the burden off proof lies which is clearly stated. Weigh up the odds yourself having taken advice.


----------

