Hi all,
A friend of mine bought a nearly new car from a well known franchised dealer networks approved used scheme about 2 years ago - it was about a year old at the time.
The warranty on this vehicle expired a few months ago (2-3), and recently the car developed a fault with the ECU. The dealer charged my friend £600 to replace the ECU, and the manufacturer contributed 20% of the cost.
There is probably nothing more to this, but as the now just over 3 year old car had average mileage and a full service history, I can't help thinking its very unreasonable for such an expensive fault to develop so soon. My friend also had to pay about £400 to have an air conditioning fault with the car repaired as well, and that was barely a month after the warranty ran out. In the last few months since the warranty expired on this very well maintained, average mileage recent model car, its cost almost £1000 in repair bills!
This got me thinking about the Sale of Goods Act which states that goods must be fit for purpose, or something like that, for a reasonable period of time.
Does this cover cars, and if so, what is a 'reasonable' period of time? Should my friend have expected more than a 20% contribution? Apparently, the fault seems quite common on this particular engine - a 1.8 - becuase my friends brother's car also had the same ECU fault, luckily within the warranty period.
Cheers.
|
|
There aren't many consumer goods where you can claim on a warranty after more than three years' use. I know it can hurt, but I feel 3 years is pretty fair really. You are allowed quite a degree of abuse during that time before the warranty terms are breached, too.
|
As I suspected. Just seems a shame - my friends recent model avg milage car has cost more than 5x in repairs in the 3 months since the warranty ran out than my 150,000 mile 10 year Xantia did throughout the 2 years I drove it.
Was hoping something could be done, alas not :(
|
Michael,
A week or two ago I posted a long section on the recent Sale of Goods Act changes.....fitness for purpose and liability by a trader for up to 6 years, I think it was under a thread about a FIAT.
regards
StarGazer
|
The problem is that the six year warranty actually means that any breach of contract is actionable for six years of discovery of the breach.
This is not new - this has been the case at least since the Limitation Act 1980. It means that you can sue because the B-reg Astra you bought in 1999 wasn't as described, presuming that you can show loss.
What it does not mean is that all goods bought must work faultlessly for six years. It certainly means that if they are shown not to be of satisfactory quality within six years then you have a claim. However, satisfactory quality does not mean the same as 'functioning flawlessly' - otherwise the Act would say that. If a car breaks down only as often as a judge might reasonably expect then there is no claim.
The fitness for purpose argument doesn't really apply here either. Fitness for purpose relates to the idea that your car doesn't have square wheels when its purpose is transportation. It doesn't mean that your car must always be able to transport you. So, a chocolate teapot may be as described, and of satisfactory quality as chocolate teapots go, but it's not fit for its purpose if it is sold as a receptacle for boiling water.
As for being as described - well that's more or less a given.
|
|
|
|
Personally I would have said that a 'reasoable period of time' would be longer than three years - maybe five years.
PS - I think I know the brand of car! ECU faults are not that uncommon - if it happens again tell your friend to get in touch with ATP Automotive Electronics in Hednesford - they will supply a rebuilt ECU much much cheaper than the dealer.
|
|
Which brand are you thinking of, Aprilia? As I've also found ECU faults to be suprisingly common - 2 in the family of my friends (Both same engine but in different cars), and one from someone else I know..
|
|
|
|
|
