Dispute with second hand car dealer over consumer rights

Dav010

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465619#Comment_121465619

Thing is, if wait around long enough, you will always find someone who tells you what you want to hear, even if they are mistaken.

The poster hadn’t yet pointed out which part of the legislation would give you an entitlement to a warranty. Again, a buyer of a 12 yr old car must accept that the condition of the car is not the same as a new car, and if the dealer informed you that no warranty was being provided, you accepted a car which was road worthy enough to travel 3k kms. You will now have to prove the defect existed when you bought it, and that it isn’t just something which occurs in a car of that age.

waterwelly

Realistically when you bought it you choose not to purchase a warranty knowing the consequences.

Not sure what your argument will be.

bucketybuck

" Any agreement of no warranty or anything as such is superseded by the consumer rights laws 2022 "

This statement is both factually true and at the same time utterly meaningless to your case.

You are still going on about laws and protection and none of it means anything until you start demonstrating why they apply in this specific incident.

BornSkippy

I suspect people are getting the wrong impression from the use of the word "warranty" here.

The OP was offered a "warranty" for more money. This is usually an additional third party product from the likes of Mapfre sold by a dealer. It's more like an insurance policy against mechanical failure than a vendor's warrenty. It is a seperate purchase to the vehicle, that may be sold along with it. The distinction isn't always made clear by the vendor.

The decision to not buy an additional third party product does not affect the statutory rights of a consumer.

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465636#Comment_121465636

Please let us know how you get on, especially if it goes to no claims.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465695#Comment_121465695

The wrong impression is people thinking that those statutory rights of a consumer are a catch all that means they are fully covered when something goes wrong.

JVince

remember, its 2nd hand, its 12 years old and an additional 3,000 miles / 5,000km has been added.

To be able to drive 5,000 km would show that the car was perfectly drivable when sold. You will need to show that the defect should have been known about when sold. That is going to be very difficult.

Its annoying, but this is a risk with 2nd hand goods and unless you can show the dealer did know or should have known about the issue or that the issue was there when you bought it, you have very little chance of success

JVince

this thread might help with the actual issue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2056952358/the-options-with-a-mercedes-automatic-gearbox-problem

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465724#Comment_121465724

Why would the seller need to know there was a problem? Surely it would be unethical and maybe illegal to sell a product with a known fault without informing the buyer.

I would side with the OP here and push the garage to cover the cost of repair. Failing that, small claims.

Donald Trump

Regardless of what the dealer says (and assuming it is a person in the trade), he can only sell the car on an "as-is" basis if he is selling it to another person in the trade.

Private individual to private individual is one thing, trade to trade is another, and then trade to private individual is where the consumer laws kick in

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465745#Comment_121465745

The problem for the OP is that losing in small claims court would cost the dealer less than the cost of the repair. Financially they would be advised to go to court, especially since they will be able to present a defence and possibly reduce their liability further.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465795#Comment_121465795

Might not be that good for the dealers overall business to have a successful claim against them in the court regardless.

flatty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465745#Comment_121465745

The most likely thing is that the dealer didn't know there was a problem. Gearboxes wear out, some slowly, some quickly. The issue on the consumer goods act angle seems to turn on whether the car was roadworthy at the time of sale. The gearbox unknowingly only having 3000 miles left in it would strike me as irrelevant.

I'd bet anything mind, that had the OP paid for the extra cover, the insurance company would have ruled it as normal wear and tear, and excluded the claim.

Dav010

It would probably be worse for the dealer to cave to every threat of litigation than lose a claim.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121464167#Comment_121464167

how much do you think the replacement of the gearbox will set you back?

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465913#Comment_121465913

I don't know that an automatic gearbox can be considered fair wear and tear, its not as if you change it every 4th service.

The mileage is a factor here though and the OP didn't provide it. And of course it is not about the gearbox being worn, it is about the specific part that failed.

sugarman20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465938#Comment_121465938

120k (assuming miles) based on the other thread.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465067#Comment_121465067

You’ve already said that’s what you were told. I’m asking what law specifically says that. If it exists, shouldn’t be hard to point to it.

Consumer rights says the below; key part in bold

If you have a problem after you buy something, consumer law sets out the steps a business has to take to resolve your issue. Find out more on what you can if you have a problem with a product. Remember that these rights will not apply if the fault, including wear and tear, was pointed out to you before you bought the item.

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465913#Comment_121465913

But that's not what numerous sources say.

The dealer has a responsibility to ensure his goods are fit for sale. He can't wash his hands as soon as a car successfully drives down the road and around the corner "it was good enough to drive out of here".

If the car developed a gearbox fault after 5000km then it's a lemon, and the dealer should sort it out.

flatty

I'd argue if it was a 12 year old car and priced accordingly and held out fine for 5k, the dealer may be seen to have held his side acceptably.

I think that the op's case isn't clearcut, and it will be a matter of opinion. The opinion may need to be that of the courts. They could jump any way, though I'd suspect they may just opt for somewhere in the middle.

I am not in the car trade, but would have some sympathy for the dealer here. He/she is not clairvoyant.

I'd also be querying the "gearbox replacement", or at least getting an opinion as if you were paying for it yourself.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465953#Comment_121465953

He can't wash his hands of it. But that doesn't mean the buyer gets new car warranty either. The judgement will fall in between based on the arguments made.

If he plays it smart the OP will likely win his case, but he does need to skip past the consumer rights fluff and get to the meat of exactly why the dealer should be liable.

flatty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465953#Comment_121465953

What do you mean my numerous sources?

Also, why are you muddying the waters with the "driving down the road and round the corner" when that isn't what happened here ?

sugarman20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465953#Comment_121465953

If the car developed a gearbox fault after 5000km then it's a lemon, and the dealer should sort it out.

After doing 115k miles? Says who?

sugarman20

You'd need to be Nostradamus to be selling cars these days!

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465986#Comment_121465986

the reason he would be liable is consumer law

HeidiHeidi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465953#Comment_121465953

That reminds me of the "the 15th pint must have been a bad one" line - if the 5000km were after another 100,000 km* had been done, you can hardly call the car a lemon.

If a car with 100,000km on it drove fine down the road, and for another 5000km, I would consider the dealer to have covered his side of the bargain (unless as others have stated he knew of a problem - but a) how do you prove such knowledge and b) it still drove fine for 5000km)

*I'm not remotely mechanically minded, and have no idea when gearboxes should be expected to wear out or fail, that's just by way of example.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121465979#Comment_121465979

I'll freely admit that I have never worked on Mercedes car, but I wonder what actual diagnosis has went on here?

Is it a well known fault and they have skipped the diagnosis and went straight to "You always have to replace the box?"

Does the garage not want to work on automatic boxes so jumped straight to "replace the box"? Sounds like they already farmed it out to a Mercedes dealer, did they just advise to replace the box because they aren't interested in messing about with 12 year old cars?

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466000#Comment_121466000

"the reason he would be liable is magic words".

flatty

That would be my read on it too. I don't think a worn gearbox after 12 years is beyond the pale either tbh, depending upon previous driving and maintenance.

flatty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466000#Comment_121466000

Not necessarily I would say