Used car issues - Consumer Rights Act?
Discussion
Late October 2015, wife bought a used Suzuki Grand Vitara from a registered car trader - car is a 2007 model with a genuine 60k miles. Car showed nothing untoward following a test drive and a good optical b
king, a little bit of good natured haggling and a price of £4.1k was agreed and paid for in cash (proceeds of another car sale)
Included in the sale was a 6 month RAC Gold warranty - covers repair costs of up to £1k.
The dealer is 80 miles away from us and doesn't have any repair facilities.
After covering only 600 miles the oil pressure warning light came on. Car was stopped as soon as it was noticed, opened bonnet and engine bay is covered with oil, not a drop showing on dipstick. It appeared to have come from the oil filter area. Filter was tight so handn't come loose.
Refilled sump (correct grade of oil) and a replacement filter fitted, restarted car - in the space of 5 seconds there was oil over the place again.
Used a recovery service to take car to a local reputable independent garage who suggested I'd over tightened filter. They had a go with two further filters (Mahle and ADL) with the same thing happening - seems there is too much pressure and it's blowing the seal out on the filter.
They're suggesting that the oil pressure relief valve on the pump is jammed shut - I agree that's a likely diagnosis. To sort this out is an engine out job - not a drop the sump affair as the pump is direct drive from front of crankshaft and built into the timing gear cover, a fair amount of work to access.
The garage who has the car isn't keen on tackling the job and suggested that as we've owned the car for 4 months I should give the supplying dealer the problem.
So, after contacting the dealer he's telling me there is little he can do - the car has a warranty, a good history but it is 9 years old and things can fail. I've countered with the fact that I'm covered by the Consummer Rights Act and the car as it stands is not fit for purpose, I'm entitled to a refund (less costs for the time we've had the car) or a repair. At this point he responds with words to the effect "if you want to get legal so can I" "this sounds like a veiled threat ect"
I've simply pointed out that he does have obligations to me under the Consummer Rights Act and things get a little more civil and he assures me he'll call back - and he does.
Returning the car to him is not practical due to distance and cost. However he does have a contact more local to me with a good rep, and this is the case, and this garage will collect car and look into the problem. They now have it. They will attempt to have the repair covered by the RAC warranty...all well and good if that happens and if a £1k limit on the repair is sufficient!
I'm left pondering how to best protect myself. At the moment I'm making an assumption that as the dealer has contacted another garage to look at the problem he has accepted his obligation to provide me with a repair, either the RAC covers the cost or the supplying dealer does. As everything that has been arranged has been done verbally over the phone, I don't have a paper trail should push come to shove.
If there is some form of template letter I can use I'd be grateful of someone could point me at it please...Indeed any other advice will be welcomed.
Thanks,
king, a little bit of good natured haggling and a price of £4.1k was agreed and paid for in cash (proceeds of another car sale)Included in the sale was a 6 month RAC Gold warranty - covers repair costs of up to £1k.
The dealer is 80 miles away from us and doesn't have any repair facilities.
After covering only 600 miles the oil pressure warning light came on. Car was stopped as soon as it was noticed, opened bonnet and engine bay is covered with oil, not a drop showing on dipstick. It appeared to have come from the oil filter area. Filter was tight so handn't come loose.
Refilled sump (correct grade of oil) and a replacement filter fitted, restarted car - in the space of 5 seconds there was oil over the place again.
Used a recovery service to take car to a local reputable independent garage who suggested I'd over tightened filter. They had a go with two further filters (Mahle and ADL) with the same thing happening - seems there is too much pressure and it's blowing the seal out on the filter.
They're suggesting that the oil pressure relief valve on the pump is jammed shut - I agree that's a likely diagnosis. To sort this out is an engine out job - not a drop the sump affair as the pump is direct drive from front of crankshaft and built into the timing gear cover, a fair amount of work to access.
The garage who has the car isn't keen on tackling the job and suggested that as we've owned the car for 4 months I should give the supplying dealer the problem.
So, after contacting the dealer he's telling me there is little he can do - the car has a warranty, a good history but it is 9 years old and things can fail. I've countered with the fact that I'm covered by the Consummer Rights Act and the car as it stands is not fit for purpose, I'm entitled to a refund (less costs for the time we've had the car) or a repair. At this point he responds with words to the effect "if you want to get legal so can I" "this sounds like a veiled threat ect"
I've simply pointed out that he does have obligations to me under the Consummer Rights Act and things get a little more civil and he assures me he'll call back - and he does.
Returning the car to him is not practical due to distance and cost. However he does have a contact more local to me with a good rep, and this is the case, and this garage will collect car and look into the problem. They now have it. They will attempt to have the repair covered by the RAC warranty...all well and good if that happens and if a £1k limit on the repair is sufficient!
I'm left pondering how to best protect myself. At the moment I'm making an assumption that as the dealer has contacted another garage to look at the problem he has accepted his obligation to provide me with a repair, either the RAC covers the cost or the supplying dealer does. As everything that has been arranged has been done verbally over the phone, I don't have a paper trail should push come to shove.
If there is some form of template letter I can use I'd be grateful of someone could point me at it please...Indeed any other advice will be welcomed.
Thanks,
jac-in-a-box said:
I've simply pointed out that he does have obligations to me under the Consummer Rights Act
Yes, he does. And, as under SOGA, they're tempered by reasonable expectations.Is there a reasonable expectation for a 9yo car to never go wrong? No.
Was the fault pre-existing at the time of purchase? No. You've been using the car for four months without issue.
Is he legally liable? Unlikely, and you'd need to take him to court for a decision one way or the other.
Is the distance between your home and his trading location his problem? No. You chose to buy a car from 80 miles away.
Yes, he's taking some responsibility in arranging for somebody to look at the car.
Yes, the warranty should cover (some of?) the costs.
Is he going above and beyond his legal requirements here? Yes.
If the cost turns out to be above the warranty pay-out limit, or the warranty doesn't cover it for whatever reason, and he walks away - then you have a decision as to whether to go legal and try to pursue your interpretation of your rights, or to pay for it yourself.
TooMany2cvs said:
Yes, he does. And, as under SOGA, they're tempered by reasonable expectations.
Is there a reasonable expectation for a 9yo car to never go wrong? No.
Was the fault pre-existing at the time of purchase? No. You've been using the car for four months without issue.
Is he legally liable? Unlikely, and you'd need to take him to court for a decision one way or the other.
Is the distance between your home and his trading location his problem? No. You chose to buy a car from 80 miles away.
Yes, he's taking some responsibility in arranging for somebody to look at the car.
Yes, the warranty should cover (some of?) the costs.
Is he going above and beyond his legal requirements here? Yes.
If the cost turns out to be above the warranty pay-out limit, or the warranty doesn't cover it for whatever reason, and he walks away - then you have a decision as to whether to go legal and try to pursue your interpretation of your rights, or to pay for it yourself.
I'm guessing you are a car trader specialising in selling sIs there a reasonable expectation for a 9yo car to never go wrong? No.
Was the fault pre-existing at the time of purchase? No. You've been using the car for four months without issue.
Is he legally liable? Unlikely, and you'd need to take him to court for a decision one way or the other.
Is the distance between your home and his trading location his problem? No. You chose to buy a car from 80 miles away.
Yes, he's taking some responsibility in arranging for somebody to look at the car.
Yes, the warranty should cover (some of?) the costs.
Is he going above and beyond his legal requirements here? Yes.
If the cost turns out to be above the warranty pay-out limit, or the warranty doesn't cover it for whatever reason, and he walks away - then you have a decision as to whether to go legal and try to pursue your interpretation of your rights, or to pay for it yourself.
te then washing your hands of it?A more reasonable approach is £4100 is strong money for a 9 year old suziki, its reasonable to expect it to not attempt to self destruct within 600 miles.
Notice how as soon as you start to assert your legal rights certain people on the wrong side revert to aggression? But how quick would they be on the phone to the police if you were down there threatening violence or damaging cars on the forecourt?
Edited by OldGermanHeaps on Sunday 28th February 14:10
He can prove otherwise, its been running around for months, it wouldnt have if the fault was present at time of sale.
Keep it civil, and take whatever good will and assistance the dealer offers. What could be easier? Sometimes st happens and its not always someone elses fault. Its your car, your problem. A little bit of goodwill if offered should soften the blow.
Keep it civil, and take whatever good will and assistance the dealer offers. What could be easier? Sometimes s
t happens and its not always someone elses fault. Its your car, your problem. A little bit of goodwill if offered should soften the blow. Thanks for your reply ^
I do actually have sympathy for the dealers position, but have more for my wallet. Had this been a minor repair and as I have in the past, I'd simply swallow the costs.
Perhaps my interpretation of this new Consumer Rights Act is wrong, as I read it anything that fails in a major way up to 30 days in my ownership allows me a refund. 30 days to 6 months allows me a repair or a refund, less an amount for use of the car. Any fault discovered in that period is deemed to be present at time of purchase. I stand to be corrected of course!
Why the filter seal should suddenly let go after 4 months and 600 miles is probably best left to those more technically adept than me...defective filter seal from last service done before the car was bought?
I'd like to think that the supplying dealer and myself could work towards an amicable arrangement regarding costs especially if the RAC warranty wriggles out of its seemingly clear cut obligations - oil pump is covered but there will be plenty of wriggle out clauses I'm sure. Just thinking ahead, oil pump works, there's plenty of pressure but it's the relief valve that's not working albeit it's integral with pump...has the valve mechanically failed? No, it's simply stuck closed!
I'd like to be surprised and think it will be covered - RAC warranty (and other 3rd party warranties) don't seem to be regarded as "great"
I do actually have sympathy for the dealers position, but have more for my wallet. Had this been a minor repair and as I have in the past, I'd simply swallow the costs.
Perhaps my interpretation of this new Consumer Rights Act is wrong, as I read it anything that fails in a major way up to 30 days in my ownership allows me a refund. 30 days to 6 months allows me a repair or a refund, less an amount for use of the car. Any fault discovered in that period is deemed to be present at time of purchase. I stand to be corrected of course!
Why the filter seal should suddenly let go after 4 months and 600 miles is probably best left to those more technically adept than me...defective filter seal from last service done before the car was bought?
I'd like to think that the supplying dealer and myself could work towards an amicable arrangement regarding costs especially if the RAC warranty wriggles out of its seemingly clear cut obligations - oil pump is covered but there will be plenty of wriggle out clauses I'm sure. Just thinking ahead, oil pump works, there's plenty of pressure but it's the relief valve that's not working albeit it's integral with pump...has the valve mechanically failed? No, it's simply stuck closed!
I'd like to be surprised and think it will be covered - RAC warranty (and other 3rd party warranties) don't seem to be regarded as "great"
jac-in-a-box said:
Perhaps my interpretation of this new Consumer Rights Act is wrong, as I read it anything that fails in a major way up to 30 days in my ownership allows me a refund. 30 days to 6 months allows me a repair or a refund, less an amount for use of the car. Any fault discovered in that period is deemed to be present at time of purchase. I stand to be corrected of course!
That's the basic rights, yes. But, of course, that's assuming NEW consumer-durable goods. For used goods, those rights are tempered - as SOGA was - by reasonable expectations for goods of that age/price/apparent condition.The failure hasn't happened after four months and 600 miles. It's happened after nine years and 60,600+ miles. There's obviously no legal comeback on Suzuki for that, so your legal comeback is against the dealer for faults that were on the vehicle at the time he sold it, or that he could have reasonably foreseen at the time of sale. Is this one of those? No.
jac-in-a-box said:
Why the filter seal should suddenly let go after 4 months and 600 miles is probably best left to those more technically adept than me...defective filter seal from last service done before the car was bought?
The seal is a symptom, not the cause. The seal has been blown out by excess pressure, as the garage have proven by changing it - only for it to happen immediately.jac-in-a-box said:
has the valve mechanically failed? No, it's simply stuck closed!
But why? Wear ridge inside the valve body? Deposits from previous filthy oil?Thanks for replies that came while I was answering TooMany2cv's response.
As said earlier I'm hoping to achieve an amicable way ahead with the dealer. Yes, it was good money for the car but we felt it was not unreasonable given its condition and the dealer wasn't selling rubbish - seems to specialise in in premium German brands.
As to the point wether or not the fault was present or not at time of purchase - it would seem in law that's not an issue that should concern me should it start to get "legal"
Yes, it worked fine for 4 months/600 miles but I would add the first filter was extremely tight to remove and it had a substantial square section sealing ring - had it been wrenched on over-tightly to try to contain the excess pressure?
All the other filters which blew their seals had soft O ring type seals which when tightened correctly blew out straight away...that's simple speculation on my behalf!
Really what I'm trying to get at is what form of wording I should use in a letter to the dealer to give myself protection. It's well and good agreeing something verbally via phone calls and then finding myself looking at a hefty bill should he wash is hands of the matter!
As said earlier I'm hoping to achieve an amicable way ahead with the dealer. Yes, it was good money for the car but we felt it was not unreasonable given its condition and the dealer wasn't selling rubbish - seems to specialise in in premium German brands.
As to the point wether or not the fault was present or not at time of purchase - it would seem in law that's not an issue that should concern me should it start to get "legal"
Yes, it worked fine for 4 months/600 miles but I would add the first filter was extremely tight to remove and it had a substantial square section sealing ring - had it been wrenched on over-tightly to try to contain the excess pressure?
All the other filters which blew their seals had soft O ring type seals which when tightened correctly blew out straight away...that's simple speculation on my behalf!
Really what I'm trying to get at is what form of wording I should use in a letter to the dealer to give myself protection. It's well and good agreeing something verbally via phone calls and then finding myself looking at a hefty bill should he wash is hands of the matter!
jac-in-a-box said:
Really what I'm trying to get at is what form of wording I should use in a letter to the dealer to give myself protection. It's well and good agreeing something verbally via phone calls and then finding myself looking at a hefty bill should he wash is hands of the matter!
Just write in plain English, there are no magic terms. Judges (if it ever gets that far, and it would only be county court) don't expect members of the public to be legally literate and miss "legal" terms. Just keep it factual and non-emotiveThe point about distance is partly key - it's your decision, not his, so don't expect much leniency in recovery costs to his location.
Jasandjules said:
Actually a fault within the first six months is deemed to have existed at the point of sale unless the vendor can prove otherwise..
And as the car has performed correctly for 4 moths then blown three filters immediately I would say that the vendor can prove it wasn't an existing faultTooMany2cvs said:
The failure hasn't happened after four months and 600 miles. It's happened after nine years and 60,600+ miles. There's obviously no legal comeback on Suzuki for that, so your legal comeback is against the dealer for faults that were on the vehicle at the time he sold it, or that he could have reasonably foreseen at the time of sale. Is this one of those? No.
The problem with that argument is that the two highlighted parts are contradictory."It hasn't happened after 4 months [...] it's happened after 9 years" is saying that it's something that's been developing since before sale. So it is something that was present at the time of sale - the fact it hadn't finally "let go" doesn't mean it wasn't already faulty - any wear or gunge in the valve will have been present 600 miles ago, so the engine was faulty even if it was unknown.
The law intentionally doesn't make an exception for faults that were invisible because, if it did, it would cover hardly anything that hadn't already failed completely!
Your position is fair enough for things like brake pads / disks but doesn't hold up or a fairly significant (because of the work involved to get at it) engine fault, especially on a car that was clearly not sold for banger money.
I'm in business, I regularly deal with items worth more than this car (but with worse parts availability and higher spares prices in a lot of cases), and I have to deal with these rules along with every other business out there.
They're just another cost of doing business really - you allow for them in your overall costings just as you allow for rents, bills, income tax, and anything else that you need to pay out. I'm not aware of any legal exemption from that for "used car seller", much as some traders seem to think there is!
TooMany2cvs said:
No, not contradictory at all. ALL consumer legislation excludes fair wear and tear.
As I said, your argument holds (in some cases but not all) for components which are expected to wear out or fail significantly before the goods' end of life. But an oil pressure relief valve is not a "service item" - in terms of either replacement or even regular inspection - and would be expected to operate for the life of the engine.
"Wear and tear" is absolutely not applicable to parts which are expected to last for the design life of the vehicle because, by definition, when thwy fail they've either failed prematurely or the vehicle has reached its designed EOL!
Thanks, for your contributions.
Hopefully I'll hear back regarding the warranty and nut 'n bolt situation today.
Not unsurprisingly, I'm of the same opinion as Variomatic; oil pump should be there for the life of the engine or any othe major component.
Having had a quick natter with the local Suzuki garage they were genuinely surprised to hear this and even offered a couple of things to look at before hauling the engine out.
I'll update when I know something useful
Hopefully I'll hear back regarding the warranty and nut 'n bolt situation today.
Not unsurprisingly, I'm of the same opinion as Variomatic; oil pump should be there for the life of the engine or any othe major component.
Having had a quick natter with the local Suzuki garage they were genuinely surprised to hear this and even offered a couple of things to look at before hauling the engine out.
I'll update when I know something useful
Variomatic said:
But an oil pressure relief valve is not a "service item" - in terms of either replacement or even regular inspection - and would be expected to operate for the life of the engine.
Yes, it should. But that actually goes into the vendor's favour, as it's even less predictable that it would fail four months after he sold a nine year old car.TooMany2cvs said:
Yes, it should. But that actually goes into the vendor's favour, as it's even less predictable that it would fail four months after he sold a nine year old car.
It doesn't matter whether it was predictable or not - "couldn't foresee it" does NOT remove liability for a fault for someone selling by way of business.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff