"the oil was checked and refilled one week before the car broke down"
But how much was left *when* it broke down?
|
|
I was almost full. AA guy checked oil at roadside too and confirmed it was fine. Car very rarely used - only 125 miles in 6 weeks
|
|
|
|
It seems plain the car won't be an economic repair whomever pays. Therefore it seems sensible to attempt to loss adjust between the parties.
On your side, you might say the emphasis is on the dealer to provide a car that lasts (at the very least) 6 months without terminal mechanical faliure. That the dealer, being in the trade, knows the risks involved in selling an older car with a 'patchy' reputation for major mechanical integrity & reliability - so he can't simply wash his hands of responsibility as he sold the car at retail price & under retail conditions.
On his side, it could be said that 6 weeks is long enough for your usage (or abusage!) to have caused or hastened the failure. That such an old car with such a price can fail like this at any time without failure,negligence or deceit on his part.
If, after trying for a further rebate or payment you get no satisfaction, I'd be tempted to go the small claims route.
I don't think you could resonably ask for a full refund - after all you used it for 6 weeks & should have been aware perhaps, that 'exotic' Italian cars of that make & vintage might have inherent weaknesses.
OTOH, the dealer should also be aware (more so in fact..) of that & realize the jeopardy of selling these types of cars. If he sells them it's not unreasonable to expect him to exercise his professional wit & expertise in selling a car of more merchantable quality.
If you got back 60% of the cost (of writing off the car) I'd take it, & think you might have a chance of that in a small claims court. At the moment you've got nothing (bar the partial recovery cost) & can't lose any more than you have already.
|
I like that woodbines
i would preferit to be 40% back and the old car though
this is exactly why i always say i dont deal in rovers and things that have a propensity to cause grief
i like to sell bulletproof boring stuff where i know all i have to do is bank the money and the customer only has to put petrol in
its bad enough selling 3 pot corsas and hope they dont go bang without worrying about headgaskets and big ends
|
|
|
If the car has done only 125 miles since it was bought, then its very easy to claim the fault was pre existent. Tell the dealer you want you money back, or you will take him to the small claims court.
|
If the car has done only 125 miles since it was bought then its very easy to claim the fault was pre existent. no it isnt he says big end gone,if it was pre existant it would have been heard like a liza minneli sound as a rat tap tap on the engine,whos there? ---------
a big end can go due to stresses or low oil,if the AA man had written onto his sheet that engine was oil full i would take the view as the seller of the car that the buyer had over revved the engine
if it was low on oil i would take the view this caused the problem
i would definately go to court and stand my corner on this one
or 40% and the old car back
its basically a no win situation for everybody
|
Its a no win situation for the dealer.
If there was no oil in it or low after 125 miles, then he either sold it like that or it had a fault where it went.
You cant ever rev it, it has a rev limiter. If he had droped it down too many cogs, its not an end that would have gone.
Sorry BB if this was mine and you went to court against me you would be leaving without your shirt
|
You cant ever rev it, it has a rev limiter
>>>>>.
>>>>> so on this car my learned friend would you try and see "what she does flat out" as it has a rev limiter and therefore wont break, i put it to you that is exactly what you did
you would be leaving without your shirt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i would be leaving with my shirt,my lost days earnings and a smile on my face
|
at this rate, minus your trousers too. Stop diggin the hole is getting bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - also had a reply from Honest John himself via email who would agree with you. As i've said, no oil problem and only 125 miles. Surely this would stand up in court!
|
|
In case of any confusion, its Alter Ego that Honest John agrees with. He has provided all the legislation - sale of goods act, etc. Burden of proof will be on the dealer to show it was not faulty, as a major fault such as this within the first 6 months gives a presumption (in law) that it was. Dealer unable to prove this as last MOT was carried out in Oct 2008 by previous owner. This, added to the evidence that oil was full and car only did 125 miles in the six weeks makes this a strong case.
|
To the best of my knowledge neither Honest John or Alter Ego are judges. Let's put it this way - if you took it to court, lost and the dealer had fought it with an expensive legal team and you got lumbered with the legal costs would they put their hands in their pockets?
If you plan to go to court get some proper legal advice - not speculation on an open forum.
The best solution though would be a negotiated settlement. You might not get full compensation but if you could get a decent percentage that would be the best bet.
It is, at the end of the day, a £1995 Alfa not a 1 year old £15000 car. These things happen and if you can walk away with a few hundred quid lost I'd put it down to experience and do that rather than have all the stress of a court case not to mention having a broken car sitting around.
|
if you took it to court, lost and the dealer had fought it with an expensive legal team and you got lumbered with the legal costs would they put their hands in their pockets? >>
pd - Are you stating the above as a dealer or as a lawyer?
To the best of my knowledge neither Honest John or Alter Ego are judges. Let's put it this way - >>
To the best of my knowledge, Honest John is a knowledgeable man who writes in the Telegraph : " Your questions answered by the motor dealer you can trust "
hanwills11:
I feel sure pd and bellboy are motor dealers who you can trust too.
However, in my view as an informed lay person, I think you stand a good chance to win if you take your case to the Small Claims Court. Go ahead, test your claim in court and post the result here. IMO you have only a few £s in fees to risk by doing so.
p.s. look up the Corsa camshaft thread to see an example of how the brave do win.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=75160&...f
|
|
|
|
this within the first 6 months gives a presumption (in law) that it was. Dealer unable to prove this as last MOT was carried out in Oct 2008 by previous owner. This added to the evidence that oil was full and car only did 125 miles in the six weeks makes this a strong case.
You haven't a hope in hell of getting 6 months coverage on a cheap car under any sort of law. In the real world it just does not work like that. An old, cheap, basically worn out car worth a fraction of its new price with a fraction of its design life remaining is not like a new toaster.
However, this is after 6 weeks so there may be a case, but please don't let people get the impression they can buy any old car and they're still protected if it blows up after 5 months 3 weeks.
Edited by pd on 05/07/2009 at 17:57
|
|
The legislation states that the burden of proof will be on the dealer as the engine failed within six months of purchase - that is all I am saying. New cars will obviously have a warranty of a much longer period - the six month rule within the Sale of Goods Act is aimed directly at the purchase of used cars from dealers by way of incorporating an implied term that goods are of a satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. The judge is concerned with the law that applies, i.e. under the Sale of Goods Act, can the dealer fulfil his burden of proof. In this case, the answer is likely to be no. Six months IS the legal period in which the presumption that the car was faulty applies if it fails. There is no discretion regarding age of car, etc.
|
|
|
It may involve a judge making a ruling but, the LAW he is applying says"
The consumer returns the goods in the first six months from the date of sale and requests a repair or replacement or a partial refund. In that case, the consumer does not have to prove the goods were faulty at the time of sale. It is assumed that they were. If the retailer does not agree, it is for the retailer to prove that the goods were satisfactory at the time of sale. This comes from Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, derived from EU Directive 1999/44/EU which became Clauses 48A to 48F inclusive of the Sale of Goods act in April 2003
If OP has legal cover in his home and/or motor insurance I'd give it a try. Engine failure on a full sump and after 125 miles is a nonsense.
"
|
What engine has it got? Is it a Twinspark? If so, can you find out if it has ever had a snapped timing belt?
The change interval for timing belts on these is now 36k miles (it was originally 72k but Alfa changed this after premature failures), and as a result of people not doing this there have been instances of snapped belts. This can cause a jolt which can damage the big end. So after having a top end fixed the bottoms have been known to go not long after. Check out www.alfaowner.com for further advice.
|
Failing big ends on Alfa 156 2.0 & 1.8 a serious & common problem. Normally occures afater an oil change & normally around 73000 miles +. As an ex garage owner I experienced a big end failure with a clients car around 80 miles after an oil change using Alfa filter & Oil & even having primed the filter with oil prior to fitting & I had serviced the car from 18000 till 83000 miles when it failed.
The only history the car had was running low on oil once at 56000 miles & overheating in the Alps according to the owner. If you gooles Alfa big end failure you will find loads of failure & when I experinced one the Alfa dealer assured me it was common.
|
The 6 months SoGA applies perfectly to toasters and DVD players. It does not apply to part worn, in many cases almost completely worn, items such as used cars and that has proved to be the case time and time again when these things have ended up in court.
It is a terribly confusing and misleading bit of legislation as applied to used cars.
In the case of a £2k car which cost £20,000 new then the dealer is quite entitled to point out that the customer can only expect it to be 10% as good as a new one.
That said, in this particular case I do think the dealer has some liability but I also think going to court should be the last resort and a negotiated settlement would be a better, and much faster, outcome for both parties.
|
pd, I would love you to explain to a judge in a small claims court exactly what 10% of the used car is!
I would also like you to explain what the design life expectancy of a car is, do the manufacturere publish these? I have never seen in any handbook or sales literature that "This car will only last XXXX miles or XXX years, which ever comes first".
Having gone through the SCC process numerous times and won over 90% of the time I feel confident that the OP has a very good case. It is all about what is reasonable and the judges in the SCC are normally very reasonable. Even spending £250 on a car from a dealer I would expect it to last a year and at least 12k miles without serious issue, if the dealer can't provide that then they should not sell those types of cars.
|
£250 on a car from a dealer I would expect it to last a year and at least 12k miles without serious issue if the dealer can't provide that then they should not sell those types of cars.
Blimey. I'd love to know where you get your cars from. £250 even at trade level just buys a total heap these days. I mean, come on, you can't get a decent train journey before 9.00am for that sort of money.
As it happens I do agree with you in this case the OP has a very good argument. Where I totally disagree (and rememeber I have seen these things go to court) is telling people there is a blanket 6 month warranty on any car at any price is dangerously misleading.
I'm pleased to say that personally I have only ever gone to court once with a customer. It was a £8000 car about 3 years old with about 95k on the clock with total engine failure. Without going into the details I won - with costs too. The ironic thing is that the first thing I heard from them about it was from the court. If they'd just phoned me up I'd have given them a refund without quesiton but as they just charged in straight away I decided to defend it.
|
I don't think anyone is claiming that the provisions of SOGA constitute a "Warranty". What it seems to do is lay down a legal framework within which the matters can be dealt with. I still think that 125 miles in 6 weeks from purchase and the sump correctly filled is going to go well for the purchaser, whether he negotiates with the seller or takes it court.
|
The 6 months SoGA applies perfectly to toasters and DVD players. >>
True.
It does not apply to part worn, in many cases almost completely worn, items such as used cars >>
Completely untrue.
and that has proved to be the case time and time again when these things have ended up in court. >>
Prove it, either publish the statistics or a list of cases which show that "time and time again" your position on this has been proved right.
I say again, IMO, pd is a dealer/trader and not an independent party expressing his unbiased view - until pd proves otherwise. I think it is fine that he should point out the other side of the coin and dissuade people from making frivolous claims that have no chance of success. However, IMO, time and time again pd tries to convince people that SOGA and the 6 months rule does not apply to second hand goods/cars when the opposite is true.
Small Claims route is an inexpensive way for the aggrieved consumer to test his/her claim if they feel strongly that they have been badly done by a rogue trader.
IMO, the car trade in general needs to clean up its act, and they could do no worse than start by reading up, and positively acting on, ALL the documents listed on the right hand column of this page:
www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/buying-selling/...l
Hanwills11 - If the dealer does not settle/negotiate/compromise, take him to court.
Edited by jbif on 06/07/2009 at 11:51
|
However IMO time and time again pd tries toconvince people that SOGA and the 6 months rule does not apply to second hand goods/cars when the opposite is true.
I have never said it doesn't apply - what I have said, and I stick to, is that it does not apply in the way some people here imply it does.
It does not, absolutely, mean you can purchase any car, at any price, and think there is a 6 month warranty automatically applied to all parts of the car. To read what some people post others could get that impression.
There is a huge range of what is deemed acceptable and not acceptable heavily dictated by the price, age, and mileage.
The sad truth is this: used cars at the cheaper end of the market are generally rubbish. If you want better, you need to spend more or buy new.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
