Warranty issue with trader.

DreXeL

DreXeL

DreXeL

Man of Honour
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
12,264
Location
Cotswolds
Ok, so about four months ago I bought a 2001 Mistubishi Shogun from an independent trader. I was provided with a fairly decent (so I thought) warranty with it, 6 months parts and labour. I was recently driving and the ABS warning lights came on, and I lost all servo assistance. I nursed it home, called the trader and he told me to bring it in for a look.

Anyway, they have decided that the servo/abs pump needs to be replaced. Now, bare in mind that on these cars the master cylinder, servo, and ABS pump are all in one unit. He has said that the warranty only covers the master cylinder (I've looked at the wording, and that is correct). However, I believe that the problem should still be covered, considering the master cylinder, servo and and ABS pump are all one unit. He's saying that because it's not the actual master cylinder at fault, but the ABS pump, he's not liable for it under the terms of the warranty.

It's an expensive unit (£700+), and he has said he will cover half the costs including labour, but I still think he should cover the whole cost.

Things have got a little heated, and he's adamant he would win if it went to court.

How should I proceed? Who is in the right?
 
Last edited:
Well... Im not sure.

But the Part thats broken isnt a part he is covering on his warranty.

Its no matter its glued to a part he is warrantied for as that part is fine.

I would take the 50% and be happy with that.
 
This

Diagro said:
Well... Im not sure.

But the Part thats broken isnt a part he is covering on his warranty.

Its no matter its glued to a part he is warrantied for as that part is fine.

I would take the 50% and be happy with that.
Click to expand...

If its' not specified, the its not covered so seems like he's being fairly reasonable in the circumstances.
 
It is a difficult one, granted. It's not like it's a separate part on the unit though, it's literally one big unit.
 
Yea i see what you mean mate, But a court would see it as a unit that does different things. it could go either way, to save you some money in the long run if it goes south i would just pay the 50%
 
I'd say it's fairly borderline and would recommend you take proper legal advice before deciding. Not sure OcUK will have the answers tbh.
 
[TW]Fox;26953319 said:
12 year old car, take the 50%.
Click to expand...

It's fair point, but irrespective of age, if he's put a warranty on the car then he should honour it, no? For me the issue isn't the age at all, it's whether or not the part should actually be covered under the terms laid out.
 
mattyg said:
According to "which" under six months its the dealers issue
Click to expand...

You do have a point too! As its a dealer they need to provide a car that's fit for purpose in those first 6 months.

I forgot that point!

If its a fault that's caused the car to not function then yes they should be liable.
 
Can he prove that the failure is due to a fault which wasn't present at the time of purchase?

If yes, then take the 50% offer.

If no, then mention SOGA and that for any faults within 6 months, the dealer has to prove that the part wasn't faulty at the time of sale, otherwise they are liable. (Note: this isn't the case for consumables which have worn out... such as clutches :p)
 
Haggisman said:
If no, then mention SOGA and that for any faults within 6 months, the dealer has to prove that the part wasn't faulty at the time of sale, otherwise they are liable. (Note: this isn't the case for consumables which have worn out... such as clutches :p)
Click to expand...

Its a 12 year old car, courts look at age

Take the 50% and run
 
DreXeL said:
It's fair point, but irrespective of age, if he's put a warranty on the car then he should honour it, no? For me the issue isn't the age at all, it's whether or not the part should actually be covered under the terms laid out.
Click to expand...

'A warranty' doesn't mean bumper to bumper coverage - there are many different warranties ranging from lots to little coverage. Sure, he's purchased a warranty and put it on the car but if the documentation states the failed part isn't covered then it isn't covered.
 
Diagro said:
You do have a point too! As its a dealer they need to provide a car that's fit for purpose in those first 6 months.
Click to expand...

They don't.

I forgot that point!
Click to expand...

Because it's not a point. They must provide a car that is fit for purpose at the time of sale. The 6 month thing is nothing more than the fact that any fault that occurs within the first 6 months is deemed to have been present at the time of purchase unless it can be demonstrated otherwise which in this case it seems it might be able to be.

What is it with people expecting new car warranties on 10+ year old cars on here all of a sudden? :p
 
[TW]Fox;26954274 said:
'A warranty' doesn't mean bumper to bumper coverage - there are many different warranties ranging from lots to little coverage. Sure, he's purchased a warranty and put it on the car but if the documentation states the failed part isn't covered then it isn't covered.
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware a warranty doesn't mean bumper to bumper coverage, as stated in my original post the only component of the braking system covered by the warranty is the master cylinder. I accept that completely, and had the ABS pump been a completely separate component then I wouldn't have even bothered calling the bloke. However, the ABS pump and master cylinder are all part of the same component, it's all one unit, therefore my argument was that technically the master cylinder has failed, because it is all one in the same unit, and part of that unit has failed!

FWIW the warranty isn't underwritten, he hasn't purchased a warranty from a third party company, the warranty is actually provided by the trader himself.

As it happens, I'm going to pay half as it's a massive inconvenience not having the car and to be honest it is clearly a grey area, I don't want to drag it out any longer when the outcome may or may not go in my favour.
 
Last edited:
mattyg said:
According to "which" under six months its the dealers issue
Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple, as [TW]Fox says if there is a fault during the first 6 months then the burden of proof regarding the fault is reversed from the norm (i.e. the trader has to prove that the fault wasn't present rather than the purchaser which is the opposite of normal). However the age/condition/price etc will be taken into account and parts that are consumable wouldn't be covered.

This situation is one where it's awkward that the component that failed is part of a multi-function unit and it's comparatively expensive but it might be difficult to argue that it was a fault at time of sale or indeed that the use didn't contribute to the failure. To cover 50% is probably fair enough here, to go to court is almost always a risk and here the circumstances suggest it's far from a clear cut win so I think DreXeL is sensible in his approach, annoying though it may be to have to pay out for this failure.
 
I can see it from both sides unfortunately. What is his evidence for it being the ABS pump and not the master cylinder? Have you seen the fault codes? The thing that i'm suspicious about is that fact you lost all servo assistance. AFAIK, this points towards it being a master cylinder problem rather than an ABS pump problem, which IIRC, would just result in the ABS light on and the ABS system switched off. I've read about plenty of people who have had their ABS pumps fail, but this does not affect the normal braking.

If he's offering 50% contribution, does that mean for £350 you can have it repaired? If so, it seems that that is going to be the best way. Just think of it as a few tanks of fuel or a pair of tyres.

A £350 repair bill is never going to be nice, but it's definitely manageable and able to chalk it up to just one of those things, unlike some bills on 12 year old cars that can be thousands and thousands of pounds.

For info, there are good condition ABS/master cylinders on eBay for £250, but obviously if he is going to do the whole thing with a new part and only charge you £350 - that is far more preferable.
 
Last edited:
He's said he can use a recon part and the whole job should come in at £550, so I'll be paying £275. I haven't seen the fault codes, no, but he said his garage seems pretty certain it's the ABS pump.
 
mattyg said:
Isnt ABS a secondary safety device. So its failure shouldn't affect normal breaking.
Click to expand...

Doesn't usually effect it when the ABS pump and servo is separate, but it being all in one unit the fault effectively shut the whole system down. When it first happened I googled the problem and other people experienced the same thing from a simply having a faulty ABS relay.

Stupid system in all honesty. Note that it wasn't simply a lit ABS light, it was the ABS light, brake warning light, and a very loud buzzer. About 30 seconds later I lost the servo assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom