Warranty - what is the point?!?!

[markjay]

I suppose that MB would argue that they could have spotted the rust a lot sooner had they inspected the car at service time.

This is correct.

Additionally, since the anti-rust warranty is above and beyond Statuary Rights, MB can stipulate financial conditions e.g. that the car is serviced by them.

And both points above are also applicable to Mobilo.

 

[Wayne.clk]

This is an Urban myth, there is no automatic right of return and refund on a used car the paragraph below is what the lawyers say on the subject, note the word MAY. It is up to you to prove the car was not fit for purpose at the time of sale, a thing very few people have ever done. Returning a second hand car purchased from a used car dealer If there's a problem with a second hand car soon after you've bought it, for example, the car develops a problem you wouldn't expect for the car's age and mileage, or it turns out not to be what you’d been led to expect, you may have the right to reject and return the car and get your money back. But you only have a reasonable time to reject a second hand car. While there's no clear definition of what a reasonable time is – it probably needs to be within three to four weeks – less if it's an obvious problem. And if you reject a second hand car you must stop using it.

Sale of goods act is law not myth
If the car has a fault you can request a refund or repair if you can prove that it shouldn't of failed,currently going through the courts with a case like this from a faulty gearbox,the car only has 46k on the clock

 

[DSM10000]

Sale of goods act is law not myth
If the car has a fault you can request a refund or repair if you can prove that it shouldn't of failed,currently going through the courts with a case like this from a faulty gearbox,the car only has 46k on the clock

But you have qualified your own argument.

That is what Ian (flango) was saying, the onus of proof is, initially on the purchaser to show that a fault is unreasonable within a particular time frame and that will be determined by the vehicles age, condition, mileage, service history, price paid etc.

 

[markjay]

The seller's responsibility for after-sale repairs (under certain conditions) is one issue. The right to reject a car is another.

I think it will be very very difficult to reject a second hand car simply because of a fault, as long as the seller agrees to put it right.

The car will have to be 'not as described' in one way or another (spec, mileage, MY, FSH, etc etc), or spend unreasonable amount of time at the seller's garage for fault fixing, for rejection to be legally acceptible.

What usually happens is that a fault develops, the seller refuses to sort it, and the buyer then threatens the seller with 'rejection' in the hope that this will get them to accept their original responsibility.

The idea is that with the sceptre of a court accepting the buyer's rejection hanging over their heads, the seller might by willing to do what they were supposed to do in the first instance.

 

[John]

I suppose that MB would argue that they could have spotted the rust a lot sooner had they inspected the car at service time.

I bet they don't inspect them ever - they just don't honour it as that is cheaper and easier.

They don't even inspect AUCs it seems.

 

[Wayne.clk]

But you have qualified your own argument. That is what Ian (flango) was saying, the onus of proof is, initially on the purchaser to show that a fault is unreasonable within a particular time frame and that will be determined by the vehicles age, condition, mileage, service history, price paid etc.

Not hard to prove when the car is unusable. And you are well within the law to return it for a full refund So it's not myth it's fact Look up sale of goods act 1979 on the gov website You do have the right to return it if it had a fault
There is no MAY about it you CAN!

 

[flango]

Not hard to prove when the car is unusable. And you are well within the law to return it for a full refund So it's not myth it's fact Look up sale of goods act 1979 on the gov website You do have the right to return it if it had a fault
There is no MAY about it you CAN!

You can't that is a fact , here is the law verbatim

The law

When you buy a used vehicle from a trader you are making a legally binding contract. You have legal rights against the trader under the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

The vehicle should be:

- Of a satisfactory quality - free from minor defects, safe and durable for a reasonable length of time. When assessing satisfactory quality you should take into account the price you paid for the vehicle, its age, mileage and condition at the time of sale.

- Fit for its intended purpose or a purpose that you made known to the trader - fit to be driven on the road.

- As described - the vehicle should correspond with any description applied to it. In some circumstances, the trader may be liable for any statement made by the manufacturer of the vehicle.

If the vehicle is faulty , you are legally entitled to request one of the following remedies:

a full refund
compensation (damages)
repair or replacement
rescission or reduction in price

Note you are legally entitled to request the dealer can tell you to fcuk off and there's no redress except to go to court. If you do you will be asked to prove the vehicle was not fit for purpose at the time of the sale, you might be able to prove it is not fit for purpose now if its broken down, but try and prove it was not fit for purpose at the time of the sale, you drove it home didnt you?

I've seen Trading Standards bring these to court many times and they have lost on every occasion

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I bet they don't inspect them ever - they just don't honour it as that is cheaper and easier.

They don't even inspect AUCs it seems.

You might notice that my post was deliberately left open to that interpretation.

 

[Wayne.clk]

You can't that is a fact , here is the law verbatim The law When you buy a used vehicle from a trader you are making a legally binding contract. You have legal rights against the trader under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The vehicle should be: - Of a satisfactory quality - free from minor defects, safe and durable for a reasonable length of time. When assessing satisfactory quality you should take into account the price you paid for the vehicle, its age, mileage and condition at the time of sale. - Fit for its intended purpose or a purpose that you made known to the trader - fit to be driven on the road. - As described - the vehicle should correspond with any description applied to it. In some circumstances, the trader may be liable for any statement made by the manufacturer of the vehicle. If the vehicle is faulty , you are legally entitled to request one of the following remedies: a full refund compensation (damages) repair or replacement rescission or reduction in price Note you are legally entitled to request the dealer can tell you to fcuk off and there's no redress except to go to court. If you do you will be asked to prove the vehicle was not fit for purpose at the time of the sale, you might be able to prove it is not fit for purpose now if its broken down, but try and prove it was not fit for purpose at the time of the sale, you drove it home didnt you? I've seen Trading Standards bring these to court many times and they have lost on every occasion

If the car was not fit for purpose at time of sale you wouldn't buy it would you! So that point you say isn't valid
Well there u go as I said the dealer has to give u a refund yes he can tell u to do one but he is breaking the contract!
Car breaks down after a few days of buying,total failure of gearbox (not fit for purpose)
Dealer refuses to repair
Ask for refund, dealer says no (not adhering to sale of goods act)
Court action taken

 

[Rory]

Car breaks down after a few days of buying,total failure of gearbox (not fit for purpose)
Dealer refuses to repair
Ask for refund, dealer says no (not adhering to sale of goods act)
Court action taken

I think the point is that it's not like you can go to the Police and have the dealer arrested for breach of the Sale of Goods Act.

Your only recourse is to sue him in court. You should win, but you might not.

And your case looks cut and dried - a car that doesn't function isn't fit for purpose. What if the fault is a little less dramatic, or is intermittant?

 

[flango]

If it breaks down with a total failure in a few days I'm not disputing that and common sense says your rights apply and the dealer should refund or replace but does not have to unless instructed by a court.

But you are missing my point you are legally within your rights to request a refund. The dealer is not obliged to give you a refund, it depends on the circumstances. This is not a breach of the contract between you.

If it were how you depict it then the law would state "you have the right to a refund" nowhere in the sale of goods act in relation to used cars is their an automatic right.

However most scenarios usually happen like this, high powered car purchased from dealer, kid rags the nuts of it for a month and clutch fails, car taken back to dealer under sale of goods act and repair requested. Would you repair a car free of charge under these circumstances? Kid told to jog on

Kid then goes to Trading standards, they try to get heavy with dealer without knowing the facts, support kid in court case, case goes to court and gets thrown out, kid faces costs, Trading Standards walk away with clean hands ready to try and ruin another reputable dealer.

 

[DSM10000]

If it breaks down with a total failure in a few days I'm not disputing that and common sense says your rights apply and the dealer should refund or replace but does not have to unless instructed by a court.

But you are missing my point you are legally within your rights to request a refund. The dealer is not obliged to give you a refund, it depends on the circumstances. This is not a breach of the contract between you.

If it were how you depict it then the law would state "you have the right to a refund" nowhere in the sale of goods act in relation to used cars is their an automatic right.

.

As much as you may try to explain something to someone you cannot understand it for them!

 

[gIzzE]

Mercedes Approved Used Car Warranty is a joke.

It should cover everything as the BMW, Audi, Lexus etc. etc. warranty does.

They assure you that they have inspected and got the car into A1 condition and should therefore not have a problem covering anything, including wear and tear items, if they do fail in the first 12 months.

This is why I always say buy your Merc privately and save five or ten grand and use that if things go wrong.

 

[tron]

A lady of my acquaintance told me that the Mercedes-Benz was the best car she ever drove, having owned a year old E class. Three years later she bought something else, although the money was there to buy new. Over the last fifteen years, MB have lost five sales. This is entirely due to the attitude of the dealers, a hangover from the Scrempp era.

 

[John]

You might notice that my post was deliberately left open to that interpretation.

In my haste for a cathartic response, I must admit I missed that first time around!

 

[markjay]

Mercedes Approved Used Car Warranty is a joke.

It should cover everything as the BMW, Audi, Lexus etc. etc. warranty does.

They assure you that they have inspected and got the car into A1 condition and should therefore not have a problem covering anything, including wear and tear items, if they do fail in the first 12 months.

This is why I always say buy your Merc privately and save five or ten grand and use that if things go wrong.

I agree, but I would say buy the car you want for the best price you can find it. If this car happens to be at an MB dealer's forecourt then fine (they do sometimes have a bargain), but in this case consider the Approved Used warranty as 'won't hurt' rather than a deal clincher .

 

[markjay]

In my haste for a cathartic response, I must admit I missed that first time around!

When you pay for 'checks' and the car is then whisked-away into the bowls of the dealer's workshop, it is very difficult to tell if the 'checks' were actually carried-out.

This is true for the anti-perforation check as well as all other checks included in the A and B Service schedules.

Our Kia dealer actually provides customers with a copy of their standard check-list with each item manually ticked by the mechanic who serviced the car.

Of course there is still no guranteed that they actually carried-out the checks... but it is reassuring.

 

[S-class]

I've had similar warranty issues, e.g AC needs regas, car was supplied with the fault but they are saying I cannot prove, escalated to a manager at MB customer service and they've said they'll reduce the amount of my next service and that's the best they can do, avoid mercedes stratstone in Huddersfield, the worst dealer I've dealt with. Tempted to do a credit card chargeback for how much I'm out of pocket by.

 

[E270 Owner]

I've had similar warranty issues, e.g AC needs regas, car was supplied with the fault but they are saying I cannot prove, escalated to a manager at MB customer service and they've said they'll reduce the amount of my next service and that's the best they can do, avoid mercedes stratstone in Huddersfield, the worst dealer I've dealt with. Tempted to do a credit card chargeback for how much I'm out of pocket by.

Air con Re-charge costs @ £40.00 from independent garages.

Is it worth you going grey over it ?

 

[markjay]

Alan Day Mercedes Benz in Finchley Road were almost iconic.

They disappeared (initially replaced by Alan Day Prestige Cars, then disappeared from Finchley Road altogether) when MB carried out a 'shake up' and replaced the private/franchised dealer network with MBUK-owned dealers.

They said at the time that this move was meant to fix the issue with customers' deep dissatisfaction with MB dealers.

15 years on..........