Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
So crystal ball spec rolling the dice, or just replace every 14 year old high mileage part on the car 'just incase' jesus this mindset @JonRGV250
How entitled, "but it's the law"
Under a dealer warranty, should injectors count as part of the engine?
- Thread starter Noughtboy
- Start date
How entitled, "but it's the law"
Fair enough, theres not much more you can do other than what you did.
Man of Honour
Keef do you need to show us on the doll where the naughty car buyers touched you?
No one's saying it's right to blow an engine up by being a dick and then expecting the dealer to fix it, no one's talking about 14 year old motherboards because there's no specific legal protection for those you just seem to be having a good old rant.
No one's saying it's right to blow an engine up by being a dick and then expecting the dealer to fix it, no one's talking about 14 year old motherboards because there's no specific legal protection for those you just seem to be having a good old rant.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 26,224
I know more people who have screwed over by dealers and mechanics than I know people who have ripped off car dealers by taking them to court.
Simple one being the dealer who covered a paint spot on the bonnet that was only visible after it's first wash. The owner didn't take the dealer to court though.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
You're contradicting yourself.
It's already been said by the law quoting above that regardless of wear and tear or who's to blame it's covered by 'the law' So I can literally get a car, rag the death out of it to redline every day from cold start, blow it to pieces within 30 days, get my money back... "because it's the law".
You're one of the ones stating that a dealer should magically use a crystal ball and know 14 year old high mileage parts can fail at anytime, especially serviceable items such as injectors...
I swear people just blindly by stuff with sue/compensation culture mindset as a backup versus owning up and maintaining stuff themselves, and yes @Noughtboy cars believe it or not can do 3-500k miles if MAINTAINED and not left to just break neglected and expect a year later at the MOT for it to be someone elses fault/bill. I'm well aware of that...
Just so we're clear, are you saying that people here are wrong and it isn't the law, or are you saying consumers shouldn't use the law brought in to protect them?How entitled, "but it's the law"
I'm not, you just don't understand the topic you're talking about properly and you're throwing tantrums about scenarios you're making up in your head that nobody is else is making claims about.
Like I said in post 47, you should probably go and educate yourself a bit on what the consumer rights surrounding used cars actually are, because it appears you don't understand them at even a basic level based on your posts so far.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
Yeah, I'd never ever buy from a main dealer, ever. They think oil is magical and can be changed at 20k like Vauxhall quoted in a friends car's service manual/technician also quoted on the phone, on a petrol car, what's the paper filter made out of, magic? They just want stuff to be bought, sold a crap we'll do 2 out of the 10 possible things on a service and then charge you yearly and MOT it once a year, then when it dies, rip you off on a trade in for something else and so the process repeats. Not all main stealers are like that, but a lot are.
I wouldn't use an independent either, I'd just buy it off someone that I think is honest based on the history/receipts of all the common things I've researched fail/recalled/service items over X mileage/age, and then chuck parts at it when I get it along with a full service and go from there, it's easy really, look after something it'll look after you.
I'm certainly not arguing with you on that one.Hmmm... arguably worse are the people who choose to sell 10-15 year old S classes, A8s and 7 series etc for little money as their business and are all chuffed with themselves and the money they're making until it goes wrong and they realise that they can't just wash their hands of it and shout 'sold as seen' at their customers
Some dealers are just proper a-holes.
We recently had one who started using us for MOT's and threw a tantrum everytime I failed one, and what is worse is one I was MOTing for him (it was a sold car) and it overheated and it was obvious the headgasket had gone, and when I asked if he was still going to hand it over, he said he was and the warranty company can deal with it.
He no longer uses us now, and not by his choice.
Car dealers are a garages worst nightmare.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
I'm saying it can be badly abused to suit a tight arse/scumbag. Not saying OP is, I've been speaking in general with that scenario based on the car's age/fault/mileage.
My point is more for something that age you just think oh well and pay to have it fixed and move on as it's 1 old and 2 not low mileage. If it turns out to be for example 4 £350-600 a piece injectors and you expect a used car salesmen/dealer to pay that on something knocking on 3/4's the way to 20 years old, that is a bit entitled, no? No one has a crystal ball, old stuff fails, fix/replace/carry on. It is what it is.
My 2nd point was it is disgusting you good genuinely go out and break a car on purpose mistreating it and still get your money back/sue someone under the same said law, as long as it was done early on, which I'm sure you'd agree is harsh to the seller, in THIS example specifically.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
OK so you get half of what I'm saying then? That's more my point, that there's a 'law' that people can literally use for fraud which is pretty ironic, no? And in the eyes of said law it'll be a 'tough pay him' despite someone could have done damage themselves... That's the bit that's annoying me mostly, along with the fact expecting something 3/4's the way to 20 years to last without maintenance just cause you bought it from X place. It shouldn't matter, old/high mileage is exactly that, a risk.
So just because something is law, doesn't mean it can't be manipulated/abused/fraud committed.
I never said the OP was doing this, I was generalising based on his situation, which is a fair point given the age/mileage, hence why I made the motherboard comparison, because regardless of 'the law' it is a valid point expecting something to last forever/cost nothing, everything needs maintaining.
Isn't this what a small claims court is for? A customer complains to a dealer for a fix. They disagree on whether the dealer is liable under law or whether the customer is taking advantage. They then go to a small claims court for a judge to decide based on evidence.
I don't know whether £300 to £600 injectors are covered under consumer law for an older car. But if it is indeed covered by law then the dealer should consider that before selling a cheap old car. Buying cars from a dealer is more expensive than buying them from a private seller exactly because buying from a dealer is meant to offer a degree of convenience and protection over and above a private sale. Personally I'd prefer to buy privately as I don't see much value buying an old car from a dealer. But there is a price difference between the two for a reason.
They can't though, really, if you understand what you're talking about.
No, it won't be.
Nobody has expected anything to last without maintenance
A risk that within 6 months of the sale, the dealer has to shoulder or prove the fault wasn't present at sale. A risk that after 6 months of the sale, the buyer would have to shoulder or prove the fault was there at the point of sale.
Nobody has expected anything to last forever or cost nothing, or not need maintaining.
Man of Honour
I 100% agree with what you're saying in that regard, but the fact it can be abused is a problem with the law itself and not the fault of 99% of the people who just expect the car they've dropped £xxxx on from a dealer to last more than 5 minutes.
The OP sounds like one of those people but you seem to have just gone nuclear "anyone trying to use their legal rights is scum" which I think is what most of us are finding the issue with.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
How can a judge that isn't an engineer/mechanic/engine builder/production staff have any clue, they won't. And how can someone say something put an estimate let alone a guarantee on a 14 year old mileage mileage part let alone to last till next month, you simply can't.
They don't take the car and engine apart, nor do the flow test the injectors etc etc etc. It is a serviceable item based on mileage/wear and tear it's as simple as that, it's just bad luck.
Imagine buying a 2-3k car which that is marked up by a dealer, and then expecting them to basically pay 2-3k for brand new injectors/fuel pump/pressure regulator and god knows what else could be the issue (potentially) via a claim in court.
I'm not saying the OP is at all doing this, my rant has purely been based on how slack/vague this law is and the fact it'll be handled by a judge that isn't at all qualified in the field, relying on some jumped up solicitor's opinion/3rd party garage...
Which again is stupid as you'd have to have taken the engine apart/tested the injectors at a 3rd party to prove any of this (which you won't as they can work fine one minute then fail tomorrow being old/X mileage) so again no way to blame the seller of the car nor the owner.
So thus a silly vague law based on the hope the right judgement is handed out in court...
And yes I buy privately and put the saving into doing all the serviceable/age related/known faults of X car I'm buying that I'd obviously have researched heavily vs buying blindly, just with anything in life...
Imagine taking someone to court over something you know full well is a known weakness on that car or is known to wear out over X miles/type of driving, knowing this then still screwing over the seller, scummy asf! Again not saying the OP is, but it still falls into why this 'law' annoys me.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
OK cool, I just wanted to make it clear I was never being a dick to the OP or I wouldn't of said what I did in my original replies to the thread, I just used his situation based on his car as a way to vent about how vague/misleading this law can be and how easily fraudulently abused it can be.
It just winds me up that we have **** like this that is always handled by **** wits in court and the wrong person usually wins 90% of the time.
It reminds me of nonsense like if someone hurts themselves breaking into your house when you're away, they can sue you despite if they hadn't broken in they obviously wouldn't hurt themselves, but 'that's a different matter' apparently
We have some of the stupidest vague/laws around I swear, and it makes the scumbags/poor me people come out the woodwork hard, and thus ruin it for the genuine people said law was made for.
Then eventually it gets taken away/removed and the genuine people get ****** over and everything falls on death ears.
So TLDR is I just take it personally when scumbags ruin stuff/do fraud and wreck things for the genuine people, especially when there's a legal loophole/get out clause.
Last edited:
Soldato
did you pay £100 or more on a credit card? if so maybe they will cover it?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 2,553
I do understand it, from a hands on experience, which is why proving the legitimacy of something like this is just rolling a dice court wise.
I could **** up an engine easily then blag this law in court within the timescale, as could anyone simply bored of the car and wanting to rake their money back after putting high miles on it and then punting it on with the compo in their pocket and the car fixed/refunded, their is countless scenarios.
The whole 6 month thing is still stupid, if you know engines/engineering you cannot guarantee stuff 'just like that' without taking it apart and doing stupidly expensive labour intensive testing/disassembly, same with having injectors tested, no ones going to do that before selling a car. Hence why this law becomes to easy to blag someone innocent with.
But don't get me wrong it can do wonders for those rightly deserving of it that have been legitimately screwed over, but not paying the bill to maintain something in the first 6 months is a ridiculous thing to expect on an old high mileage car knocking on 3/4's of 20 years old come on.
If you're talking about genuinely serviceable items though, it's easy to not get stitched up for that - you simply present the record of the serviceable item being serviced on the car you're selling as full service history (as in OP example) or point to the schedule saying the item is due it's service now/in the future. Not even the most incompetent of judges is going to slap a dealer with a 'repair' bill to carry out obviously scheduled service work.
The 6 month thing is about as sensible as it can be for used car purchasing really - a dealer should know their responsibilities in this period and price their cars accordingly. This is part of the reason dealership cars have to cost more, because the dealership needs to put money aside to resolve potential problems with the cars they are selling. You don't have to strip down every car you sell, you cost in your contingency across all your sales so that when you need to spend £200 replacing a failed component on a car, you can cover that cost without bankrupting yourself.
I don't think the legislation is anywhere near as open to abuse as you're painting it either, it's hardly a walk in the park to pursue claims this way if a dealer chooses to be awkward about it even when the consumer is absolutely 100% unarguably in the right. The idea people can freely damage cars they are bored with and simply stitch up a dealer to get it all paid for is an idea that I don't think is related to any sort of reality in all honesty.
Soldato
The law isn't being as ass here.
The law expects a number of things, that items sold outside of personal transactions, ie by a business are fit for purpose.
For a car that its deemed that outside true service items (tyres, brake pads etc) that the car will serve its basic purpose.
To avoid the age old, get it running once so that it starts when someone tests it, and do the same when they come to pick it up, but know they will have an issue later. Such as you often see with batteries.
The law also assumes, quite rightly, that someone who is acting as a professional (ie its their job) is more aware of and capable of a more detailed and expert opinion than a layman.
So if a used car dealer is selling a car the law says it must function as such, not for 5 minutes, but for a period of 6 months. If there is clear abuse or obvious damage then the rights are lost.
Otherwise its assumed the expert would have known about a fault and should have fixed it.
There is a reason why generally main dealers don't sell 14 year old cars.
Buying cars as got a hell of a lot less dodgy than it was when dealers could basically scam people and suffer very limited come back, most people would not go and seek, and pay for expert opinion and hence the dealers would get away with selling clearly faulty cars.
There is still plenty that consumers can end up with a bill for that they shouldn't but as the item is a service item they are crap out of luck. Batteries being an obvious one.
The law expects a number of things, that items sold outside of personal transactions, ie by a business are fit for purpose.
For a car that its deemed that outside true service items (tyres, brake pads etc) that the car will serve its basic purpose.
To avoid the age old, get it running once so that it starts when someone tests it, and do the same when they come to pick it up, but know they will have an issue later. Such as you often see with batteries.
The law also assumes, quite rightly, that someone who is acting as a professional (ie its their job) is more aware of and capable of a more detailed and expert opinion than a layman.
So if a used car dealer is selling a car the law says it must function as such, not for 5 minutes, but for a period of 6 months. If there is clear abuse or obvious damage then the rights are lost.
Otherwise its assumed the expert would have known about a fault and should have fixed it.
There is a reason why generally main dealers don't sell 14 year old cars.
Buying cars as got a hell of a lot less dodgy than it was when dealers could basically scam people and suffer very limited come back, most people would not go and seek, and pay for expert opinion and hence the dealers would get away with selling clearly faulty cars.
There is still plenty that consumers can end up with a bill for that they shouldn't but as the item is a service item they are crap out of luck. Batteries being an obvious one.