Absolutely agree with the above ,I'm a car dealer ,I wouldn't have paid for the repairs you indicate .A cambelt failure is no different to a tyre failure ,it's a service item .
On a car of that age your fortunate that the dealer is being so generous ,pay the man his money .
Thier is no way that you could prove that the cambelt was failing when you bought the car .
What's not being mentioned in the various posts is that you will end up with a car in substantially better condition when you get it back ,at very little cost to you ,ie new cambelt ,new oil pump etc .
|
Thier is no way that you could prove that the cambelt was failing when you bought the car
Tony, you know just as well as I do that the customer does not have to prove the belt was failing when he bought the car; the dealer has to prove it wasn't.
There is no way a court wil accept the belt wasn't faulty after only 3 hours of ownership.
A cambelt failure is no different to a tyre failure
Totaly agree. If a tyre "failed" (other than accident damage, obviously) after only 3 hours the dealer would be liable too.
No-one has suggested that the belt failed due to an accident have they? Red herring on your part!
Edited by bonzo dog on 11/10/2012 at 14:25
|
|
Hi Bonz, something to remember here the dealer offered a full refund of the purchase price!
or a repair that would involve having a new cam belt fitted where on earth would you get that for £195?? its paramount to a betterment if he didn't like it he should have had a refund!
and realistically what would a district judge say?? you was offered a refund but declined you was offered a repair at a nominal cost and declined! what a you looking for!!??
i personaly think it all sounds very reasonable but there is always two sides to every story.
|
|
|
Hi bonzo ,
We hear this so often on this forum ,The dealer is responsible for most failures ,for 6 months ,on a car that's 10 years old and was sold for £2000 .even if its consumer law it's nonsense .
In many years I've only once had a customer come back to me with a similair problem ,a mondeo dual mass flywheel clutch ,he wanted me to pay for it ,I refused ,he went off making threats and I never heard from again .
The point is that the law and car buyers must be realistic ,if you buy an old car for little money you're taking a risk ,if the car goes wrong ,the dealer can't always be responsible .
I've never heard of a case where a dealer has had a judgment made against him in these circumstances ,can members give details of a case such as this that's on the net.? Consumers must accept some responsibility for their actions ,or do we live in a nanny state where individuals are always protected from their own actions .
This particular piece of legislation ,puts me in mind of another stupid law that said that children of a certain age and height had to be seated on a raised seat in the rear of a car .
This law was also badly thought out and is very rarely enforced ,although again well intentioned .To enforce the law a police officer would be faced with removing
an 8 year old from a car ,measuring him and try to determine his age .Many 8
year olds would be hysterical at the prospect .
|
The point is that the law and car buyers must be realistic ,if you buy an old car for little money you're taking a risk ,if the car goes wrong ,the dealer can't always be responsible
Agreed. And in this case we are talking 3 hours of ownership, so it's my opinion that the court will say it is totaly reasonable that the dealer is responsible.
As regards court action, customers will rarely go to this length, believing that the potential costs will outweigh any benefits.... but I'll have a look.
|
|
HI Bonzo something major to remember The guy was offered a full refund for the purchase price!! case closed!! its not the dealers problem if the guy had some paint work done and put a private plate on it! and put some fuel in it, it sound like he would have put the plate on what ever car he was driving and he would have to tax, insure and put fuel in it so how is that the dealers problem?
|
HI Bonzo something major to remember The guy was offered a full refund for the purchase price!! case closed!! its not the dealers problem if the guy had some paint work done and put a private plate on it! and put some fuel in it, it sound like he would have put the plate on what ever car he was driving and he would have to tax, insure and put fuel in it so how is that the dealers problem?
Hi Mod, I did say in my first post that he was due a full refund of the £2200. It is this point I have been argueing, not the additional costs.
As regards these additional costs I'm unsure how the court would see it.
I susupect that they would not agree to the fuel but on the other hand they could take the view that as the customer had to put fuel in the car then the dealer should bear the responsibility, as the breakdown was the dealer's fault & not the cutomer's - ie consequential loss; ditto the transfer costs back to another car.
As regards the £250 for body repairs, this was paid to the dealer before purchase & will almost certainly be viewed as part of the purchase price (in my opinion)
Edited by bonzo dog on 13/10/2012 at 09:27
|
|
The purchase price is the price paid on the sales invoice! not some inflated figure by someone who had a discount then decided to get cosmetic work done to a vehicle, one last thing is he would have to put fuel in any car unless he wanted to walk! next thing he will be expecting is a contribution for the tread on his shoes for having to walk to the sales office!!
we have got to stop been so p.c in this country.. do you think the dealer wanted to rebuild the engine to have someone crying at them for a couple of weeks?? if it was me i would have told the bloke to do one and done what the dealer offered and put the check through the letter box, the gezza has had a right result i don't know what he was whinging about? but hey ho each to there own i suppose.
|
The purchase price is the price paid on the sales invoice! not some inflated figure by someone who had a discount then decided to get cosmetic work done to a vehicle, one last thing is he would have to put fuel in any car unless he wanted to walk! next thing he will be expecting is a contribution for the tread on his shoes for having to walk to the sales office!!
My understanding of the law in this country is that if person A causes person B to lose money unwittingly, then person A has to reimburse this loss.
So in this case person B has incurred a loss of the petrol & the transfer fee which he would not have done so had the car not being faulty at purchase (as determined by it failing 3 hours later).
As regards the price paid on the invoice, it is likely given that this was paid prior to purchase, that this was on the sales invoice.
|
|
Hi Bonz i am sorry to say this but you are obviously just clutching at straws here! the guy was looking for some good advice that would stand up legally, what you are saying is complete and utter nonsense, as i stated before i have been a legal advisor to citizens advise since 1995, The guy has been treated more than fairly by the dealer, this took place over 6 months ago and you are arguing he was entitled to more than what he got! i'm sure the person in question would have sought further advise from the powers that be and decided not to take it further otherwise he would have complained further to anyone who would listen! i am sorry to get on my soap box but i get sick and tired of people who try to advise people who haven't got a clue what the outcome would be in reality! i hope you understand what i'm saying and please don't get offended because that's not my intention.
|
|
No, I'm not offended, just a bit perplexed? Perhaps you could clarify my view that:
My understanding of the law in this country is that if person A causes person B to lose money unwittingly, then person A has to reimburse this loss
Is this a general principle of English Law or not?
|
|
|
|
|
"Moderator" - welcome to the forum, but would you mind changing your pen-name to something else as it could cause confusion!
Avant (moderator)
|
|
|
|
