Cambelt failure, help with dealer please
Discussion
Morning all,
I bought a Clio 172 from a dealer at the end of May, and on the 22nd August the cambelt failed. The car was sold as having full SH, all belts etc done correctly.
I've been in touch with the dealer and they've (eventually) got back to me, after a prod from Trading Standards, and have requested I return the car back to them for repair.
Unfortunately I have reservations about this on 2 fronts:
1) The distance involved. The garage in question is 100 miles/2.5h from me, which means recovering the car to them will be expensive. My preference is to have it inspected/repaired locally to save this faff, and...
2) They have an in-house workshop, which is presumably a motive as to why they want to inspect and repair it. When I bought the car they'd put a fresh MOT on it which required a track rod end and ball joint on one side, unfortunately they had obviously rushed this and not bothered with the tracking. Not exactly confidence inspiring, but I was willing to let it slide originally (no car's perfect of course!). Now, however, they're tasked with an engine rebuild and cambelt replacement on a car which is notorious for this being a tricky job, and I'd be worried about them using the cheapest parts and not replacing the tensioners/pulleys etc as required on replacement.
Is what they're asking reasonable within the SOG act, or is it reasonable to help me out with costs here?
Thanks all for any suggestions.
I bought a Clio 172 from a dealer at the end of May, and on the 22nd August the cambelt failed. The car was sold as having full SH, all belts etc done correctly.
I've been in touch with the dealer and they've (eventually) got back to me, after a prod from Trading Standards, and have requested I return the car back to them for repair.
Unfortunately I have reservations about this on 2 fronts:
1) The distance involved. The garage in question is 100 miles/2.5h from me, which means recovering the car to them will be expensive. My preference is to have it inspected/repaired locally to save this faff, and...
2) They have an in-house workshop, which is presumably a motive as to why they want to inspect and repair it. When I bought the car they'd put a fresh MOT on it which required a track rod end and ball joint on one side, unfortunately they had obviously rushed this and not bothered with the tracking. Not exactly confidence inspiring, but I was willing to let it slide originally (no car's perfect of course!). Now, however, they're tasked with an engine rebuild and cambelt replacement on a car which is notorious for this being a tricky job, and I'd be worried about them using the cheapest parts and not replacing the tensioners/pulleys etc as required on replacement.
Is what they're asking reasonable within the SOG act, or is it reasonable to help me out with costs here?
Thanks all for any suggestions.
In your position, I'd say that what they are offering is reasonable* as I'm pretty sure SOG says that before you can go any further, you have to provide the seller with a chance to remedy said error/s.
*I would however be pushing for them to recover the car from you back to their garage and/or cover the cost.
*I would however be pushing for them to recover the car from you back to their garage and/or cover the cost.
MrBarry123 said:
In your position, I'd say that what they are offering is reasonable* as I'm pretty sure SOG says that before you can go any further, you have to provide the seller with a chance to remedy said error/s.
*I would however be pushing for them to recover the car from you back to their garage and/or cover the cost.
I agree with the above.*I would however be pushing for them to recover the car from you back to their garage and/or cover the cost.
The supplying dealer will need to inspect and rectify the fault.
RobinOakapple said:
The fact that they are a long way from you is your problem, not theirs.
You may have no confidence in their repair skills and efforts, but that's who you chose to buy the car from.
This.You may have no confidence in their repair skills and efforts, but that's who you chose to buy the car from.
You chose to buy from a dealer 100 miles away. They did not chose to have a customer from 100 miles away.
Krikkit said:
Is what they're asking reasonable within the SOG act, or is it reasonable to help me out with costs here?
It is perfectly reasonable for them to want to use their own mechanics, why would they want to pay someone else's profit just because you bought a car a long way from home?markmullen said:
It is perfectly reasonable for them to want to use their own mechanics, why would they want to pay someone else's profit just because you bought a car a long way from home?
It is also reasonable for them to use the cheapest parts possible, as they would likely have done if they had changed the cambelt prior to you buying the car.The cambelt failed *almost* a quarter of a year after the initial purchase - so I'm tending to think that the car was a pretty decent car and sold on in good faith.
They will want to inspect it themselves of course. That's fair enough and you'd do the same.
Assuming they pay a mechanic a wage to repair vehicles for them then fair to expect them not to want to pay what effectively could be full-retail price for a customer to take it back to Renault main dealer! <for purpose of illustration>.
I'd imagine that they are likely looking to do a good job as they wouldn't want it back again!
- try not to go down the route of throwing stones at the dealer for a cambelt failure (Renaults do love to chuck a belt - they're fragile enough as it is).
Hope the prob gets remedied. I'm sure it will.
G.
They will want to inspect it themselves of course. That's fair enough and you'd do the same.
Assuming they pay a mechanic a wage to repair vehicles for them then fair to expect them not to want to pay what effectively could be full-retail price for a customer to take it back to Renault main dealer! <for purpose of illustration>.
I'd imagine that they are likely looking to do a good job as they wouldn't want it back again!
- try not to go down the route of throwing stones at the dealer for a cambelt failure (Renaults do love to chuck a belt - they're fragile enough as it is).
Hope the prob gets remedied. I'm sure it will.
G.
DS197 said:
Dont the cambelts come with a years warranty or something? I know the gates ones for the 197 come with a 5 year warranty. When exactly were the belts changed?
Probably do have a warrantee - although i would have thought likely non-transferable, and subject to correct fitting blah blah...As an example:
http://www.contibelts.com/pressreleases/LtdLifetim...
Thanks for the thoughts chaps, I thought that was the case, but it's always worth checking. I will go back to the garage and see if they can help me out, otherwise potentially pay for recovery.
LoonR1 said:
Quoted in case it gets deleted, as this thread isn't going the way the OP wanted.
Happy to leave that there forever more, I'm a novice at SOGA-related queries and don't mind admitting it; were it a private sale I'd have repaired and be using the car again by now, but I bought from a dealer on the principle of having this cover in case of belt-related disaster (which is unfortunately what's happened!).Joeguard1990 said:
Why would you travel 100 miles for a Clio 172...?
At that age it came with a warranty I would always be weary of a failure at some point simply because of the fact that I would have to travel 100 miles again if something went wrong.
In your case this has happened
At the time there weren't any decent ones any closer. The reality of living in Lincolnshire is there are very few garages that are close with decent stock half the time, this was the nearest original one with FSH, the rest were chavved specials.At that age it came with a warranty I would always be weary of a failure at some point simply because of the fact that I would have to travel 100 miles again if something went wrong.
In your case this has happened
In this case the only thing I'd be asking the dealer to sort out were either gearbox or cambelt failure, neither of which were likely by usual logic.
How old was the car, what was its mileage when you bought it and how much did you pay? Faults occuring in the first six months of ownership (when bought from a dealer) are deemed to have been present at the pioint of sale, and the dealer has some responsibility for them...
Two extremes:
In one case, a brand new car (warranty notwithstanding) costing £20k with 100 miles on the clock develops a significant fault. The dealer is arguably 100% responsible (again, warranty notwithstanding, this is merely an illustration) for the cost of the repair.
In the second case, someone buys the equivalent of the first car but it is now 25 years old, cost £200 and has covered starship mileage; it then develops the same significant fault pretty soon after purchase. Arguably, in this case, the dealer's responsibility is minimal and it can be expected that they may make only a small (say 10%? 5%? Discuss...) contribution. If it was a blown bulb then I'd expect it to be changed as goodwill; a new battery then say a "50% of retail price" contribution from the buyer (after all, the buyer is going to benefit from it come winter!) but the dealer buys it at trade price so loses very little; anything bigger the buyer would be paying for most of it.
Two cases at opposite ends of the scale...
So - it is cut and dried? No, because it can be argued that the responsibility of the dealer is 100% of what I have suggested above (so, in the case of the second car, 100% of the 10% suggestion I have made = 10%) - but it can also be argued that this proportion of responsibility diminishes steadily from 100% (so, in case 2, 10% of the cost of repair) on day 1 to 0% at day 183 (i.e. at the six month point when "dealer responsibility" ceases).
So it could be suggested that the OP, having owned the car 3 months, has already "lost" 50% of what the dealer might be said to be responsible for cost-wise. Of course, it isn't so simple because the dealer will be buying materials at trade prices not retail - but the principle is the same.
I have a gut feeling that the dealer will be asking for a fair contribution towards cost of repair, based on the above .
If the SOGA landscape has changed recently, and the above scenario has changed, I would be keen to know
.
Two extremes:
In one case, a brand new car (warranty notwithstanding) costing £20k with 100 miles on the clock develops a significant fault. The dealer is arguably 100% responsible (again, warranty notwithstanding, this is merely an illustration) for the cost of the repair.
In the second case, someone buys the equivalent of the first car but it is now 25 years old, cost £200 and has covered starship mileage; it then develops the same significant fault pretty soon after purchase. Arguably, in this case, the dealer's responsibility is minimal and it can be expected that they may make only a small (say 10%? 5%? Discuss...) contribution. If it was a blown bulb then I'd expect it to be changed as goodwill; a new battery then say a "50% of retail price" contribution from the buyer (after all, the buyer is going to benefit from it come winter!) but the dealer buys it at trade price so loses very little; anything bigger the buyer would be paying for most of it.
Two cases at opposite ends of the scale...
So - it is cut and dried? No, because it can be argued that the responsibility of the dealer is 100% of what I have suggested above (so, in the case of the second car, 100% of the 10% suggestion I have made = 10%) - but it can also be argued that this proportion of responsibility diminishes steadily from 100% (so, in case 2, 10% of the cost of repair) on day 1 to 0% at day 183 (i.e. at the six month point when "dealer responsibility" ceases).
So it could be suggested that the OP, having owned the car 3 months, has already "lost" 50% of what the dealer might be said to be responsible for cost-wise. Of course, it isn't so simple because the dealer will be buying materials at trade prices not retail - but the principle is the same.
I have a gut feeling that the dealer will be asking for a fair contribution towards cost of repair, based on the above
.If the SOGA landscape has changed recently, and the above scenario has changed, I would be keen to know
.The car was £2k, about market rate for a well-kept example, and was on 89k miles.
It now stands at just-under 92k miles, 3 months later.
Interesting ideas, but your split of repairs assumes that the car is completely outside the scope of SOGA at 6 months, which it isn't, the burden of proof is mine.
Looking at the MOT history the car should've been due another cambelt change in October 2018 (the mileage from the MOT history isn't enough to warrant changing that way before 5 and 10 years), or at 140k miles. Both of which are far enough away to make a relative contribution from me tiny (7.3%).
It now stands at just-under 92k miles, 3 months later.
Interesting ideas, but your split of repairs assumes that the car is completely outside the scope of SOGA at 6 months, which it isn't, the burden of proof is mine.
Looking at the MOT history the car should've been due another cambelt change in October 2018 (the mileage from the MOT history isn't enough to warrant changing that way before 5 and 10 years), or at 140k miles. Both of which are far enough away to make a relative contribution from me tiny (7.3%).
Krikkit said:
The car was £2k, about market rate for a well-kept example, and was on 89k miles.
It now stands at just-under 92k miles, 3 months later.
Interesting ideas, but your split of repairs assumes that the car is completely outside the scope of SOGA at 6 months, which it isn't, the burden of proof is mine.
Looking at the MOT history the car should've been due another cambelt change in October 2018 (the mileage from the MOT history isn't enough to warrant changing that way before 5 and 10 years), or at 140k miles. Both of which are far enough away to make a relative contribution from me tiny (7.3%).
So you seriously expect a dealer to cough up on a £2k car with nearly 100k miles on it. In most peoples eyes a £2k car is a shed nearing the end of it's life. SOGA as far as cars are concerned also takes into consideration the age and mileage of a car and I would expect most dealers selling cars at this end of the market to tell you to do one.It now stands at just-under 92k miles, 3 months later.
Interesting ideas, but your split of repairs assumes that the car is completely outside the scope of SOGA at 6 months, which it isn't, the burden of proof is mine.
Looking at the MOT history the car should've been due another cambelt change in October 2018 (the mileage from the MOT history isn't enough to warrant changing that way before 5 and 10 years), or at 140k miles. Both of which are far enough away to make a relative contribution from me tiny (7.3%).
So if your dealer is offering any help in sorting the issue I'd bite his hand off.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff