Someone I know is looking at getting a fairly old (but quite high-value) used car from a dealer. He is thinking about getting an RAC inspection, but posed an interesting query.
If he buys a used car and something major goes wrong (e.g. autobox failure) within the first month or two then I think that under the Sales of Goods Act (or whatever its called nowadays) he can go back to the dealer and claim a repair on the basis that it must have been defective at the time of sale.
If, on the other hand, he has an inspection done and the report concludes that the car has no major faults then has he in fact taken away his own rights to make a claim against the dealer in the event of a major fault? In other words, would he be better off, from a legal POV, in not having an inspection done?
|
I think you'll find that it does not affect his statutory rights.
What it does affect is the ease/difficulty of proving that something is or is not so.
|
I think that I have read about c case like this somewhere and it did cause a problem.
On another tack though - If the car is old but high value then I assume its something reasonably exotic ? Dont use the AA / RAC get a specialist to look at it. The generalists dont know the issues as well and are not certain to be up to speed. As an example - If it was a 911 then there is an excellent buyers guide (Adrian Crawford ?) which tells you exactly what to look for and how significant different things are.
|
|
|
|
An owners club for the car of the marque would be the best place to find someone to look over it. They'll probably be better able to spot a dud and can accompany your friend as another friend rather than an inspector. Doesn't the RAC inspection gave you legal recourse against the RAC too? If they say the car is ok and it does go wrong catastrophically you should be able to take action against them as they gave you bad advice.
What's the car as a matter of outright nosiness? :-)
teabelly
|
Essentially, Aprilia, that is my take on it.
An inspection shows that, on the balance of probabilities, the car was fault free. As such, the additional rights granted do still apply, but aren't very useful as the dealer, if challenged in court, would have met the burden of proof placed upon him to show, on the balance of probabilities, that the car did not have the fault when sold.
Of course, an inspection like that would not preclude the car from having to be fit for purpose, as described and of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act, nor would it supplant any additional warranty.
However, although its effect can be like a 6 month warranty, the EU regulation relating to the burden of proof in proving the presence of faults is not a warranty and the subtle differences can be important in a case like this.
|
Hmm...
So what we are saying is that having a used car inspection does indeed 'muddy the waters' a bit. I guess if the inspection led the buyer to believe the car was 'good' and it subsequently went 'bang' then the buyer would have a claim against the inspection company rather than the dealer?
BTW - what is the time limit on making a claim against a dealer? I've read 28 days, but also three months.
|
I dont think the RAC/AA warrant their inspections. I presume you are unable to look at the car for him Aprilia?
I think the other company HJ has mentioned on this site may warrant thier inspections. If you have the car inspected by them, they will give you warranty on that basis. So if gearbox goes bang, get it fixed on the warranty. But this is irrelevant for your friend. Why would he want to pay twice for warranty?!
I think there is an EU directive that has recently come into force that says the car must be free from faults that have not been declared at point of sale. For a period of 6 months after the sale the dealer that sells the car is liable to recitify any faults that come to light, that were present at point of sale but not declared. Thats my understanding of it. But how does one prove what was present at point of sale?
I fear that if you entrust a third party to assees the car, it will complicate matters. If the third party declares the car free from faults he therefore must agree with the sellers description. If a fault materialises your statutory rights will not be effected. However, the dealer will have strong grounds that he sold the car in good faith and that his description was fair and accurate: if the expert assesor did not spot the fault it was reasonable the seller did not spot the fault. If there is a fault i think it will much more difficult to show that on the balance of probability, the fault was present at point of sale, given the position the seller will now be in.
I think your friends ability to make a claim against the seller may well be strongly influenced by the reputation of the dealer, and how keen he is to maintain it! Ho ho
Does anyone here know of any cases that have gone to court that may help to clear up what these new laws actually mean? Its an intersting question: take measures to reduce risk at purchase, and by doing so create greater risk after purchase.
|
|
Oh dear, late and tired, i should of read David HM's post properly- much bettter written than mine! Mods please do the usual, i'm off to bed.
|
re inspection, it would be quite easy for dealer to put good tyres on for the inspection, then swap them back with questionable ones immediately afterwards before handover, and similar dodgy dealings
im sure this never happens of course :)
|
|
|
|
