advice on clutch gone on car that i just bought.
Discussion
confused_buyer said:
Migx said:
the car have 150960 miles. i have done about 500 miles with it.
Sorry, but I don't think you've got a hope in hell on the clutch. 17 year old car with 150k - it is bound to have lots of worn out bits - clutch included - which nothing will cover and are part and parcel of buying such a car.Feel free to quote something that proves me wrong.
Centurion07 said:
confused_buyer said:
Migx said:
the car have 150960 miles. i have done about 500 miles with it.
Sorry, but I don't think you've got a hope in hell on the clutch. 17 year old car with 150k - it is bound to have lots of worn out bits - clutch included - which nothing will cover and are part and parcel of buying such a car.Feel free to quote something that proves me wrong.
confused_buyer said:
V8RX7 said:
On a £3k car they are brave trying to remove your rights by writing it's unroadworthy.
To then sell you a warranty too is ridiculous.
It should be repaired for free.
If not call Trading Standards
And what are they going to do about it? To then sell you a warranty too is ridiculous.
It should be repaired for free.
If not call Trading Standards
The most they might do is decide the dealer is guilty of unfair trading terms and prosecute. If they do, as a criminal matter it will go before a Magistrates Court. If found guilty they will impose a fine which - if paid - will go to HMG. This will not help the buyer except maybe giving them some sort of warm satisfaction of justice.
The issue of a repair is a civil matter - not criminal - between buyer and seller and the most Trading Standards will do is handout a leaflet.
A tradesman I know recently used them to prove his work was of good standard as the customer was being unreasonable and with holding payment.
Anything written on the invoice can be ignored unless its the only paperwork generated. The contract is usually sealed with the order form. If the wording about "sold as scrap etc" is on the order form then the dealer is under no obligation to fix anything. The fact that he sold you and extended warranty actually helps his case, not yours. You will find it is a third party mechanical breakdown insurance and as such is not an admission of responsibility on his part.
If nothing was written on the order form then the deal comes under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
And here is where everything gets difficult. If the clutch is slipping then it can be argued that it is exceptable quality for a car of that age and mileage.
If the clutch fails completely then the car is not fit for purpose, is not of merchantable quality and the dealer is legally obliged to repair it. The same goes for the suspension.
Getting him to stand by his legal obligations is another thing entirely.
So it all comes down to what was written on the order form.
If nothing was written on the order form then the deal comes under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
And here is where everything gets difficult. If the clutch is slipping then it can be argued that it is exceptable quality for a car of that age and mileage.
If the clutch fails completely then the car is not fit for purpose, is not of merchantable quality and the dealer is legally obliged to repair it. The same goes for the suspension.
Getting him to stand by his legal obligations is another thing entirely.
So it all comes down to what was written on the order form.
V8RX7 said:
IME it's amazing how having TS on side can help speed up a satisfactory conclusion.
A tradesman I know recently used them to prove his work was of good standard as the customer was being unreasonable and with holding payment.
True, but many people are under a major misconception with used cars, SoGA and Trading Standards. A dispute over a fault with a used car is a civil matter between buyer and seller and, if it goes that far, would involve the buyer taking the seller to court. The most Trading Standards will do is give a little bit of generic advice but they are not a free legal service. Therefore when people state "report them to Trading Standards" etc. it is all a bit pointless beyond the fact that TS will advise them of how to present their case to the seller. This is obviously helpful, but not necessarily a solution.A tradesman I know recently used them to prove his work was of good standard as the customer was being unreasonable and with holding payment.
Trading Standards are only really interested when a criminal act has occured and then they may prosecute. That doesn't really help the buyer at all as even if found guilty they will be fined and the fine go to HMG still leaving the buyer to bring a seperate civil case in an attempt to recover any money. Even if they win such a case if the seller does not pay up it will involve yet more legal action to recover the awarded money which may, or may not, be successful.
MarsellusWallace said:
Was the car sold to you as scrap/spares,not roadworthy?If so you don't have a lot of comeback.
If not then why did you accept an invoice from them stating those things if it wasn't really the case?
I agree with this... But clearly the car wasn't sold as scrap/spares as they also sold him a warranty on it and he paid £3000! If not then why did you accept an invoice from them stating those things if it wasn't really the case?
Dodgy by the dealer but I it is going to be hard work going to court over it.... OP might get lucky, the dealer might offer to fix it / a contribution towards the cost.
Centurion07 said:
Clutches don't go from being fine to being shagged within 500 miles.
They don't normally, but you could easily destroy a healthy clutch in 500 miles, and could certainly destroy a well-worn but healthy one. For example, trying to reverse a heavy trailer up a steep hill. Or getting stuck off road. Or trying to tow a heavy van. That's why clutches are especially problematic for warranty claims - it's easy to destroy them by accidental abuse. And I'd imagine that Land Rovers or Range Rovers are more likely to be used for the sort of thing that makes it easy to destroy a clutch...AJB said:
They don't normally, but you could easily destroy a healthy clutch in 500 miles, and could certainly destroy a well-worn but healthy one. For example, trying to reverse a heavy trailer up a steep hill. Or getting stuck off road. Or trying to tow a heavy van. That's why clutches are especially problematic for warranty claims - it's easy to destroy them by accidental abuse. And I'd imagine that Land Rovers or Range Rovers are more likely to be used for the sort of thing that makes it easy to destroy a clutch...
Very true. I've bought cars at 4.00pm one afternoon, driven it to Germany the next morning, spent a day driving it around the Nurburgring and left it with knackered tyres, brakes and clutch within 24 hours and 500 miles of buying it (always made it back to the UK though).Done this 3 times with different cars. Pity the poor sod who bought them at auction afterwards.
AJB said:
Centurion07 said:
Clutches don't go from being fine to being shagged within 500 miles.
They don't normally, but you could easily destroy a healthy clutch in 500 miles, and could certainly destroy a well-worn but healthy one. For example, trying to reverse a heavy trailer up a steep hill. Or getting stuck off road. Or trying to tow a heavy van. That's why clutches are especially problematic for warranty claims - it's easy to destroy them by accidental abuse. And I'd imagine that Land Rovers or Range Rovers are more likely to be used for the sort of thing that makes it easy to destroy a clutch...Centurion07 said:
I'm not saying it's not possible, but on the balance of probabilities, AND the onus being on the warranty company in proving it's knackered purely because of the abuse it's suffered in the 500 miles of the OP's ownership, I'd say any legal proceedings are going to favour the OP. Or at least hope anyway.
It is knackered because it has done 150k miles and is 17 years old. Things which are just physically worn out are just physically worn out which is why no warranty will ever cover them.New car warranties usually exclude friction material let alone on cars like these.
I really don't think the OP has a case - they maybe would if it was an issue with the hydraulics of the clutch but if it is a worn friction plate I can't see it. They can't argue it has failed prematurely as it has done 150k miles.
A similar thing happened to a mate of mine, purchased a car along with warranty (although not "as seen"), the clutch went within 3 months. He returned to the indy dealer who told him it was classed as a wear and tear item, and as such not covered by the warranty (along with brakes and tyres etc), however as a gesture the dealer agreed to fit the new one ,if he supplied it, for free, which IMO was quite generous.
good luck, even if you get met halfway it's still a result.
good luck, even if you get met halfway it's still a result.
id tread carefully..the dealer sounds a bit iffy putting down scrap/unroadworthy on the paperwork ..infact alarm bells would have gone off there and then for me
second..what kind of warrenty company puts a decent warrenty on a car that milage /age
i can imagine them repairing the car and presenting you the bill saying the warrenty said f.o
second..what kind of warrenty company puts a decent warrenty on a car that milage /age
i can imagine them repairing the car and presenting you the bill saying the warrenty said f.o
steveo3002 said:
id tread carefully..the dealer sounds a bit iffy putting down scrap/unroadworthy on the paperwork ..infact alarm bells would have gone off there and then for me
second..what kind of warrenty company puts a decent warrenty on a car that milage /age
i can imagine them repairing the car and presenting you the bill saying the warrenty said f.o
Most of the warranties offered by dealers at the cheaper end of the market are insurance based cover with companies like auto protect/customer protect. second..what kind of warrenty company puts a decent warrenty on a car that milage /age
i can imagine them repairing the car and presenting you the bill saying the warrenty said f.o
The list of items they exclude is massive, "wear and tear" is the usual general get out clause. Also, they only cover sudden failure and you need evidence of service history to get the claim authorised; not just a stamped book but a full invoice from a VAT registered garage. Even after all that, the owner has to pay for investigation/diagnostics, and the warranty co may send out an "independent" inspector to check the failed part and the garage isn't allowed to complete work until authorised.
All in all they are a waste of time - even if they will actually pay out the whole process takes so long it is of no help to anyone relying on their car for work/family/etc.
They are just a way for the dealer to make a bit extra and help avoid any responsibility under the SOGA.
confused_buyer said:
V8RX7 said:
On a £3k car they are brave trying to remove your rights by writing it's unroadworthy.
To then sell you a warranty too is ridiculous.
It should be repaired for free.
If not call Trading Standards
And what are they going to do about it? To then sell you a warranty too is ridiculous.
It should be repaired for free.
If not call Trading Standards
The most they might do is decide the dealer is guilty of unfair trading terms and prosecute. If they do, as a criminal matter it will go before a Magistrates Court. If found guilty they will impose a fine which - if paid - will go to HMG. This will not help the buyer except maybe giving them some sort of warm satisfaction of justice.
The issue of a repair is a civil matter - not criminal - between buyer and seller and the most Trading Standards will do is handout a leaflet.
Now whether a car with a dodgy clutch is unroadworthy is another matter - my view is that it is not, so any offence may be limited to the trading practices, which would not help the buyer in the same way. However in general, if there were a conviction, this would help the buyer's civil case immensely.
You paid £3k for a car described as scrap?
You may find this saying from Thomas Tusser in the 16th century relevant:
"A foole & his money,
be soone at debate:
which after with sorow,
repents him to late."
The only steps to be taken after seeing that on an invoice are great big ones as far from the would-be seller as possible with your money still in your pocket.
You may find this saying from Thomas Tusser in the 16th century relevant:
"A foole & his money,
be soone at debate:
which after with sorow,
repents him to late."
The only steps to be taken after seeing that on an invoice are great big ones as far from the would-be seller as possible with your money still in your pocket.
Edited by paintman on Saturday 27th April 19:30
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff