Dealer swaps my wheels or something

[flango]

Hmm, Flannaia, I thought you ran a garage? In which case, you should really know that the above statements are all incorrect. The buyer has 6 months protection via relevant legislation (see below) not via your goodwill, the onus is on the seller to prove the problem was not there at time of sale (noth the buyer, as you state) and you would be responsible for a ball joint failing within 6 months - the MoT is not relevant.

(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 ).

Sorry my miss post, you are quite corect as SWMBO has just pointed out, but no I don't "run" a garage I am a partner in one and rely on SWMBO and her pal for the legal advice. The onus is indeed on the seller for the first 6 months but if the car was sold with a full MOT then this would be proof enough in law that the joint was not faulty at the time of the sale and is not the responsibility of the seller and you have still maintained the buyers statuatory rights.

Apologies for the mis post but it was a late night last night, but as Jay says it all relative and depends on the value of the car in question.

Update: Just to qualify this has just been checked with a lawyer who acts for trading standards in cases with second hand cars, his comment " A ball joint would be classed as a wear and tear item and would not be covered under any warranty nor would it be expected to be replaced under the buyers statutory rights, fair wear and tear is not a fault"

 

[BenzedUP]

Steve really sorry to hear abour your bad luck mate, it seems you have nothing but hassel with your new CDi.

if it helps I'm having allot of hassel with my M3 too.

 

[whitenemesis]

Steve, what's the update after your visit to the dealership?

 

[st4]

I am not going to post the specifics as certain things they've agreed to change/do FOC have not yet been done, but the visit and discussions with the service manager was a much more positive experience than I expected it would be.

I would rather post when its all done and said and let them be judged on what they've done. The car should be going later this week for it to be brought back to the standard (roughly) it went in before visit 1 and before visit 2.

What I'll say is that the manager was much more helpful than anyone else, and has taken what I said seriously, and appears to be coming up with not the solution I posted, but something satisfactory.

 

[LTD]

 

[speedybiker]

Sorry my miss post, you are quite corect as SWMBO has just pointed out, but no I don't "run" a garage I am a partner in one and rely on SWMBO and her pal for the legal advice. The onus is indeed on the seller for the first 6 months but if the car was sold with a full MOT then this would be proof enough in law that the joint was not faulty at the time of the sale and is not the responsibility of the seller and you have still maintained the buyers statuatory rights.

Apologies for the mis post but it was a late night last night, but as Jay says it all relative and depends on the value of the car in question.

Update: Just to qualify this has just been checked with a lawyer who acts for trading standards in cases with second hand cars, his comment " A ball joint would be classed as a wear and tear item and would not be covered under any warranty nor would it be expected to be replaced under the buyers statutory rights, fair wear and tear is not a fault"

Hang on a minute here, can you ask the said lawyer if I purchase a car and 14 day's later a dealer finds a fault with the ball joint problem it would NOT be expected replaced under the buyers statutory rights?

If this is the case I would be obliged if you could please let me have the said lawyers phone Number Thanks.

I understand that you said HIS COMMENT, but would still like to get more of an insight here.
Alex.

 

[whitenemesis]

I am not going to post the specifics as certain things they've agreed to change/do FOC have not yet been done, but the visit and discussions with the service manager was a much more positive experience than I expected it would be.

I would rather post when its all done and said and let them be judged on what they've done. The car should be going later this week for it to be brought back to the standard (roughly) it went in before visit 1 and before visit 2.

What I'll say is that the manager was much more helpful than anyone else, and has taken what I said seriously, and appears to be coming up with not the solution I posted, but something satisfactory.

Very cloak and dagger Steve!

 

[st4]

Very cloak and dagger Steve!

Lol, but I'd rather wait and see how they get on with what they'd said they'd do, and post something good about the place after that (as its a postive enough outcome for me if it all goes smoothly-which would be a first with MB Glasgow and THIS car, the last one they were so good with and nothing was too much trouble) and it would be nice for this thread to end on a positive note.

 

[flango]

Hang on a minute here, can you ask the said lawyer if I purchase a car and 14 day's later a dealer finds a fault with the ball joint problem it would NOT be expected replaced under the buyers statutory rights?

If this is the case I would be obliged if you could please let me have the said lawyers phone Number Thanks.

I understand that you said HIS COMMENT, but would still like to get more of an insight here.
Alex.

Depends on the value and the mileage and how old the car is. But under the following circumstances a ball joint would not be expected to be replaced.

A 5 year old car was purchased with a full MOT carried out by the seller of the vehicle. This in law identifies the fact that there was not a problem with the component at the time of the test, so if the car has not been used from the test being carried out to being sold then the ball joint must be OK.

14 days later the buyer discovers a problem on the ball joint then this would be classed as fair wear and tear and NOT a fault therefore the seller would not be libable to replace even if he had warranted the car let alone under the statutory rights of the buyer.

That is the view of 3 very experienced lawyers including one who specialises in trading standards cases, so choose to believe it or not but I am not going to post or divulge the contact details of my wifes friends in open forum or to anyone I don't know.

 

[st4]

Car has done 11k miles since purchase and receipt in late June/Early july

 

[crockers]

Personally Steve I would have been pretty miffed if that was my car and MB famous used car warranty hadn't replaced it free.

Glad things are turning out ok.

 

[prprandall51]

Depends on the value and the mileage and how old the car is. But under the following circumstances a ball joint would not be expected to be replaced.

A 5 year old car was purchased with a full MOT carried out by the seller of the vehicle. This in law identifies the fact that there was not a problem with the component at the time of the test, so if the car has not been used from the test being carried out to being sold then the ball joint must be OK.

14 days later the buyer discovers a problem on the ball joint then this would be classed as fair wear and tear and NOT a fault therefore the seller would not be libable to replace even if he had warranted the car let alone under the statutory rights of the buyer.

That is the view of 3 very experienced lawyers including one who specialises in trading standards cases, so choose to believe it or not but I am not going to post or divulge the contact details of my wifes friends in open forum or to anyone I don't know.

You sound like you are hiding behind the value of the car, so let's assume that this second-hand purchase is not a banger but a reasonably recent used car.

In this case, the ball joint is your problem if it fails after 14 days since you, as the seller, have entered into a contract for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or which did not remain so for a reasonable period of time.

You can quote all the lawers you like but, if you really would not consider taking some culpability for a failed ball joint 14 days after you had sold the car, I suggest that you should get yourself a sheepskin coat and a pork-pie hat since you would be acting like a rogue trader. And I think the law would not be on your side.

 

[crockers]

I think Ian may be stating the absolutes as seen by legal personnel. I'm sure any reputable dealer would also factor on goodwill, reputation etc.
Some one stated the law so Ian came back with legal definitions. No need to attack the messenger unless he actually utilises the message.

 

[Mr E]

I would imagine that VOSA would take an interest too - a car passes an MOT with no advisory but the ball joint fails 14 days later...

If the advisory was there, then I would expect that to be considered in the price of the deal and the buyer went into it with "eyes open". There may also be circumstances where a ball joint may fail through a single incident, but I know what my course of action would be.

 

[SilverSaloon]

i take advisaries with a pinch of salt nowadays.

every year i get different ones, new ones, and previous ones i didnt attend to have dissapeared...

 

[Deleted member 37751]

You sound like you are hiding behind the value of the car, so let's assume that this second-hand purchase is not a banger but a reasonably recent used car.

In this case, the ball joint is your problem if it fails after 14 days since you, as the seller, have entered into a contract for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or which did not remain so for a reasonable period of time.

You can quote all the lawers you like but, if you really would not consider taking some culpability for a failed ball joint 14 days after you had sold the car, I suggest that you should get yourself a sheepskin coat and a pork-pie hat since you would be acting like a rogue trader. And I think the law would not be on your side.

A bit strong don't you think? It is common sense, what he is saying; an independant party (MOT tester) has checked the car and passed it without advisories, so how can the seller be liable? What if the buyer drives the car in an irresponsible way and does damage to the ball joint within a couple of weeks or so of the MOT and tries claiming via the seller?
I see your point with 'rogue traders' but it can be to easy to taint someones reputation, when a quiet word or something along them lines tends to go a lot further in resolving issues.

 

[Andi968]

Depends on the value and the mileage and how old the car is. But under the following circumstances a ball joint would not be expected to be replaced.

A 5 year old car was purchased with a full MOT carried out by the seller of the vehicle. This in law identifies the fact that there was not a problem with the component at the time of the test, so if the car has not been used from the test being carried out to being sold then the ball joint must be OK.

14 days later the buyer discovers a problem on the ball joint then this would be classed as fair wear and tear and NOT a fault therefore the seller would not be libable to replace even if he had warranted the car let alone under the statutory rights of the buyer.

That is the view of 3 very experienced lawyers including one who specialises in trading standards cases, so choose to believe it or not but I am not going to post or divulge the contact details of my wifes friends in open forum or to anyone I don't know.

You sound like you are hiding behind the value of the car, so let's assume that this second-hand purchase is not a banger but a reasonably recent used car.

In this case, the ball joint is your problem if it fails after 14 days since you, as the seller, have entered into a contract for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or which did not remain so for a reasonable period of time.

You can quote all the lawers you like but, if you really would not consider taking some culpability for a failed ball joint 14 days after you had sold the car, I suggest that you should get yourself a sheepskin coat and a pork-pie hat since you would be acting like a rogue trader. And I think the law would not be on your side.

You have upto 28 days after the MOT for the car can be taken to VOSPA and retested and as I found out recently from trading standards there is no time limit under Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) a buyer should expect within any reasonable time frame defects to be repaired.

 

[jaymanek]

Whatever the law says, its never in the interests of th dealer or MOT station to contest any complaints.

For an MOT station, they simply dont want to risk getting any points, its far cheaper in the long run just to keep the customer happy.
VOSA employ a driving licence like points system, so many points and you are out. Points are easy enough to pick up without customers compaining. You can get points for silly things like the yellow marker lines having worn away at the customer parking bay or not having a customer waiting area clearly marked etc etc.

For a dealer, going to court, even if the dealer wins, the judge will always attribute court costs etc to the defendant as "the claimant has had to go through the courts to get a resolution" And for most items, its simply not worth the hassle and costs.

Its our policy just to keep the customer happy... but within reason, as trust me, there are plenty of unreasonable people out there - mostly down to ignorance of mechanics rather than attitude.
If they are unreasonable there is nothing you can do but keep all the evidence to show that you have been fair and reasonable at every stage.

 

[prprandall51]

A bit strong don't you think? It is common sense, what he is saying; an independant party (MOT tester) has checked the car and passed it without advisories, so how can the seller be liable? What if the buyer drives the car in an irresponsible way and does damage to the ball joint within a couple of weeks or so of the MOT and tries claiming via the seller?
I see your point with 'rogue traders' but it can be to easy to taint someones reputation, when a quiet word or something along them lines tends to go a lot further in resolving issues.

Flannaia has frequently referenced his garage and the services it offers to readers of this forum. Furthermore, he quotes the law on many motoring-related issues. In so doing, he is establishing himself as somebody with an opinion that carries a degree of authority.

If a registered trader comes onto this site and then completely mis-represents the consumer's statutory rights with regard to the purchase of a car, then I for one am happy to take issue - it certainly seems we were all happy to have a pop at the MB garage for failing to respond appropriately to a percieved lack of consumer protection.

By the way, Flannaia's garage does its own MoTs. I am confident they are carried out with care and without bias. However, they cannot be said to be "independent".

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Flannaia has frequently referenced his garage and the services it offers to readers of this forum. Furthermore, he quotes the law on many motoring-related issues. In so doing, he is establishing himself as somebody with an opinion that carries a degree of authority.

If a registered trader comes onto this site and then completely mis-represents the consumer's statutory rights with regard to the purchase of a car, then I for one am happy to take issue - it certainly seems we were all happy to have a pop at the MB garage for failing to respond appropriately to a percieved lack of consumer protection.

By the way, Flannaia's garage does its own MoTs. I am confident they are carried out with care and without bias. However, they cannot be said to be "independent".

I have no issue with your reasons, it just maybe come across, to me anyway, the wrong way.
I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure even if the MOT is in-house, it would still be independant because whilst the MOT is being carried out, the tester is technically being employed by VOSA.