Dispute with second hand car dealer over consumer rights

Does the sale of goods apply to used/second hand products? I thought it was just new things.

So you might have not been told the entire story either OP.

The fact the car was used, the price you paid vs the price of remediation & the cost of repair to the dealer vs what would be reasonably expected in this situation are all taken into account.

Basically what you described from the phone call was very cut and dry but if you actually read into the Sale of Goods act and consumer laws generally it’s a bit more abstract.

It really is not as straightforward as “I bought it, it’s broke, it’s less than 3 months, refund please”, which I feel as though you are betting on.

The fact is you’re very unlikely to get any money back from this. You bought a used, 12 year old car, what you see is what you get to be fair.

How much did you pay exactly?

Donald Trump

There are special laws and protections in relation to the sale of motor vehicles. No need to be going on about new vs second hand

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implied condition on sale of motor vehicles.

13.—(1) In this section “motor vehicle” means a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

(a) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, and

(b) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical.

(2) Without prejudice to any other condition or warranty, in every contract for the sale of a motor vehicle (except a contract in which the buyer is a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles) there is an implied condition that at the time of delivery of the vehicle under the contract it is free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply where—

(a) it is agreed between the seller and the buyer that the vehicle is not intended for use in the condition in which it is to be delivered to the buyer under the contract, and

(b) a document consisting of a statement to that effect is signed by or on behalf of the seller and the buyer and given to the buyer prior to or at the time of such delivery, and

(c) it is shown that the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) is fair and reasonable.

(4) Save in a case in which the implied condition as to freedom from defects referred to in subsection (2) is either not incorporated in the contract or has been effectively excluded from the contract pursuant to that subsection, in the case of every sale of a motor vehicle by a person whose business it is to deal in motor vehicles a certificate in writing in such form as the Minister may by regulations prescribe shall be given to the buyer by or on behalf of the seller to the effect that the vehicle is, at the time of delivery, free from any defect which would render it a danger to the public, including persons travelling in the vehicle.

(5) Where an action is brought for breach of the implied condition referred to in subsection (2) by reason of a specific defect in a motor vehicle and a certificate complying with the requirements of this section is not proved to have been given, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the proven defect existed at the time of delivery.

(6) Regulations under subsection (4) may apply to motor vehicles generally or to motor vehicles of a particular class or description (defined in such manner and by reference to such things as the Minister thinks proper) and different forms of certificate may be prescribed for different classes or descriptions of vehicles.

(7) A person using a motor vehicle with the consent of the buyer of the vehicle who suffers loss as the result of a breach of the condition implied by subsection (2) in the contract of sale may maintain an action for damages against the seller in respect of the breach as if he were the buyer.

(8) The Statute of Limitations, 1957, is hereby amended—

(I) by the insertion in section 11 (2) of the following paragraph—

“(d) An action for damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, shall not be brought after the expiration of two years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”;

(II) by the insertion in section 49 of the following subsection—

“(5) In the case of an action claiming damages under section 13 (7) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words ‘six years’ there were substituted the words ‘two years’.”.

(9) Notwithstanding section 55 (1) of the Act of 1893 (inserted by section 22 of this Act) any term of a contract exempting from all or any of the provisions of this section shall be void.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note, I am not saying that the OP will, or will not win. As has already been explained by another poster, it would be up to a court to decide

Designator

For those wanting to know , this car was bought for €7,500 so for that price you’d expect the car to be driveable for more than 7 weeks. Not to mention two weeks after the sale the fan belt snapped which the seller covered the cost of it to the tune of €240 . So that shows he was willing to stand over the car when it was something small and relatively cheap to repair but when it’s a bigger more expensive repair he doesn’t want to offer any solution . And to the chap saying I’m trying to pull a fast one and screw the dealer , need I remind you that I’m the one with the car sitting in my driveway that won’t move after less than two months from purchase , so I think I’m being screwed more than the dealer here son.

?Cee?view

@Stefan Plain Deodorant- yes. sOg act applies to second hand goods as well.

Can’t quote or reply to specific posts from phone. Hate this new Boards!

”what you see is what you get” is oversimplifying it from a legal point of view, but as a description of what the end result would be here, it’s probably pretty close to the truth. No judge will allow full recovery based on a cheap old car (we assume) having been well used for several months.

bucketybuck

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468741#Comment_121468741

If the OP was genuine he could indeed have a good chance to get recourse/money back in the courts, as an automatic gearbox is not a wearable item and should be expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle.

He just needs to drop the meaningless consumer rights babble and start focusing on the facts that will be assessed in court.

waterwelly

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468794#Comment_121468794

At €7500 you would really want to be making sure 3 months engine and gearbox warranty was included.

Also get a third party mechanic to look at it.

Stephenc66

OP

I can't comment on the consumer law issues as I know nothing about them. But in general terms common sense dictates that any case or even mediation will need proof.

A few things not clear from your original post and my apologies if I've missed them in previous posts.

"Then the other day I had a check engine light and the car went into limp mode so brought it to the local mechanic and they told me Mercedes advised them that the gearbox will need to be replaced."

This seems a bit "he said they said" making a claim will require more than this. Has Mercedes looked at the car? Is there a written report or even a quote outlining the actual problem and the cost of repair?

"So I’ve requested a refund which the seller isn’t playing ball with so have been advised by the consumer rights commission to send a formal letter and take it from there."

Just for clarity have you requested a refund of the purchase price and for you to return the car or for the repairs?

You say that the seller is not playing ball. Has he offered any solution even looking to take the car in to asses the problem for himself?

Did you ask the seller to asses the problem before you took it to your own mechanic?

All things I would think would factor in to any successful claim.

kirving

What's not helping the case here is that they have gone back to the seller, with the third party opinion of the local garage, and fourth party opinion of Mercedes (who as far as I can tell) haven't seen the car, and a misinterpretation about their consumer rights, are now looking for a refund. It's been handled badly by the OP IMO.

I'm not really sure what option the garage has, when the get a customer who can come in with big claims about needing a new gearbox, but to deny them outright.

OP, I understand your frustration, but by going to your local mechanic, and then Mercedes, and now bringing to be honest inaccurate claims about you legal entitlements into to argument, you've ruined any potential that the seller might have come to an agreement on the best recourse for both of you. Now maybe he would have told you where to go anyway, but exhaust the amicable option first.

There is no law that entitles you to a full warranty for 3 months.

• Maybe you drove the crap out of the car.
• It could be an A-Class or a S-Class.
• It could have 300k, or 50k km on the clock.
• It could be modified or tuned.
• It could have a full history or none.
• What actual evidence is there it needs a new gearbox?
• Has it been stripped down by the local mechanic already or just scanned?

All of the above, and more, will come into a judges decision as to whether or not your claim in reasonable and based on your posts, I don't think you're going to put together a convincing enough argument for a decision to go in your favour. Taking 10 posts to even say how much the car cost is just way too cagey.

I wish you the best of luck, but in your position, you might be best to try and come to an agreement with the original garage on how it could be repaired, by them, at a more reasonable cost to the pair of you, because as I said, I think you're going to have a difficult time getting a small claims judge on side with the action and explanation you've given so far.

JVince

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121466346#Comment_121466346

Nope. I know what a trade sale is and that is totally different.

When you buy a used item you do not have the same rights as a brand new item. 5,000km travelling without the issue would suggest that the vehicle was suitable for the purpose at the time of sale and that the fault was not known. If it had only done 1,000 km, it would be different.

It is going to be difficult for the op to win a scc case.

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468900#Comment_121468900

it is the consumer rights law that gives him recourse in the court. Both David Dunning and Justin Kruger would like a word with you

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121470612#Comment_121470612

If you say so Mr senior council.

mickdw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468794#Comment_121468794

Yes at 7.5k, It should run for longer than 2 months. Begs the question, why would you purposely opt out of the suggested warranty?

Would you pay the 1500 now if you could go back?

Designator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121478794#Comment_121478794

To be honest no I wouldnt because according to consumer rights when I told them about the issue on the phone they agreed with me that the extra €1500 would have essentially got me the same 3 month warranty im entitled to by law so it would have been wasted money. Plus I dont think anyone expects a car to have a complete engine or gearbox failure within 3 months of buying it anyway, Ive had over ten cars in my life and ive never once had any fail this soon after purchase.

bucketybuck

Again you drop in to repeat that you have your "consumer rights" but not one attempt to answer anything else, such as what the actual fault is supposed to have been or did the seller make sure to state on the bill of sale that the car was not covered by any contractual warranty. You know, things that might be relevant to an actual dispute.

Designator

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480221#Comment_121480221

But youre also failing to understand the facts. A solenoid has failed internally in the gearbox, mercedes tech advised that in this situation the entire gearbox needs replacing. And you can argue about me stating consumer rights all you want, but fact is that the car wasnt covered by contractual warranty but as consumer laws supersede these agreements that means that the fact me and the dealer agreed no warranty does not matter, because the law states that this is superseded by consumer rights. Thats what I have been told by people whos job it is to know these laws inside out

monkeybutter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480221#Comment_121480221

How would that relevant to the dispute

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480305#Comment_121480305

If the solenoid failed after you bought the car, then you have no chance of recovering costs from the garage, no matter how loud you shout CONSUMER LAW.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480305#Comment_121480305

Lawers and barristers are the people whose job it is to know the law inside out and even though they are very well paid for it a lot of the time they lose cases.

It doesn't really matter what you were told by some stranger in a free call center, the Judge is the person where the buck stops.

mickdw

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480163#Comment_121480163

You are in the situation where you have an expensive failure and will need court decision to see if you get it covered or part covered.

The warranty had you bought it would have guaranteed you this repair as long as dealer isn't a dodge.

As a complete aside, I wouldn't really consider main dealer suggested repair as the only possible repair. It will certainly require gearbox removal but I would have thought that a gearbox specialist could renew a solenoid in a gearbox.

Seth Brundle

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480163#Comment_121480163

according to consumer rights when I told them about the issue on the phone they agreed with me that the extra €1500 would have essentially got me the same 3 month warranty im entitled to by law

You do not get a 3 month warranty by law. You were given some advice over the phone by someone who is unaware of all the material details of the case. So either they were incorrect in what they told you or you did not fully understand what you were being told.

Consumer rights ensure that something you buy is fit for sale. You bought an "old" car (which is expected to have issues) and drove it without problem for five thousand Kms. You have not managed to show us how your consumer rights were breached here. You have cited nothing but a casual conversation over the phone which has as much legal standing as me watching LA Law and thinking I'm a lawyer!

You took a gamble on an old car by not taking out the warranty. Now you're trying to bluff your way into a free repair shouting about consumer rights just makes you look even cheaper. You obviously need a reliable car given you do a lot of mileage so trying to be cheap about it was incredibly daft of you!

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121467077#Comment_121467077

No

Mellor

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

You keep saying its the law, but have not been able to point to that law

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121482220#Comment_121482220

The new consumer rights bill that was passed in november 2022 gives a lot of protection. It includes EU directives and also covers second-hand goods. Someone posted a section from the act earlier in the thread that relates specifically to motor vehicles. The gov.ie site said if a fault develops within 6 months then it's assumed it was there when purchased. (Will try find the link for that)

This says the time for redress now has been increased to 2 years.

https://www.gov.ie/ga/seirbhis/a09d3-consumer-rights-and-guarantees-related-to-buying-goods-and-services-including-procedures-for-consumer-dispute-resolution-and-compensation/

EDIT:

According to the citizens information website, those periods for fault discovery and redress are now 12 months and 6 years. This only applies for purchases after 29 Nov 22.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer/shopping/problems-with-faulty-goods/

Ah I can’t understand why anyone is even bothering anymore, OP has made up their mind. Go ahead, lodge a SCC and see how you get on, definitely update here I’d be interested to know.

Of course it will be many years before you ever get a sitting and even then it may not go in your favour. What’s your plan in the meantime?

See, if you had some sense OP what you’d do is speak to the garage, apologise for your behaviour, explain you were just angry about the car but ask them if they’re willing to sort it out somehow.

I bet you if you approach them with an open mind they’d be willing to help. Look lads if I can source the parts would youse look after it then?

thats how I’d go about it anyway. Plenty of time to kick up a fuss if you’re getting no where. More flies with honey and all that.

Good luck.

astrofool

And just to double check here, there is no "warranty" scenario here, a warranty doesn't exist and it's purely a consumer rights issue as to whether the garage covers the problem.

(in which case, going on about a non-existent warranty reduces the chances of the OP getting anywhere).

Stephenc66

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121480305#Comment_121480305

I did ask previously has the seller point blank refused to deal with issue or is he just refusing to replace the gearbox or refund you the purchase price. Has he offered any kind of a resolution?

There is every chance that the issue can be fixed by a competent independent specialist at a fraction of the cost of a Mercedes replacement. It would appear from a quick internet search that it is a a common problem with some Mercedes auto boxes and parts are readily available.

Would you be willing to explore that as an option with the seller? Has he already offered it?

Again I am not arguing that consumer rights are in your favour or not. For the purpose of discussion I am accepting that they are. I am simply asking has the seller made any offer to to fulfil his obligation which includes to repair the fault or has he even offered to have the car checked for himself.

All you have said is he has not played ball. He has obligations under the consumer rights but he also has protections.

Padre_Pio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121468741#Comment_121468741

That's what most of us have been saying.

There is an expected life with anything you buy, and it's up to the OP, the dealer, and possibly the small claims court to agree on what that expected life is and what remediation should happen.

The minority of people are arguing the extremes. Either the dealer is 0% or 100% liable. Neither of these is clear cut unless those above agree on it.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121482576#Comment_121482576

Again, you are just naming an act. can you point to the actual text of the law that grants a 6 month warranty for used cars. The link link you provided confirms that you have a right for redress if it was faulty at the time of purchasing. 6 month is the time permitted to find such a fault. That is not the same as a 6 month warranty if breaks within 6 months.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121484880#Comment_121484880

Nobody is saying the OP is entitled to a warranty. Most people understand that a warranty is an additional insurance that some manufacturers and sellers provide foc, others like the motor trader here want to charge for it. The entire thread is about the OP's consumer rights which are covered by legislation.