Refund for car with fault

robclay26

Have a car, bought it 2 weeks ago second hand from a main dealer. Had to have 2 small jobs done, fix a panel clip inside and the drivers door was out of alignment. (not from a crash) deeler said he would fix these.
when collected the car these 2 jobs where not done.

Today the engine diagnosticslight came on with the heater coil light flashing and also the traction control light is on.

Am i entitled to demand a refund for a faulty car on the basis of the above and that the dealer didnt do them 2 jobs and then this engine diagnostics problem?

we can buy food, electrical goods, house hold goods etc and if they are faulty we can return for a refund, Can we do the same with a car under warrenty and bought from a main dealer?

Thanks for help!

mathepac

your rights and the procedures you need to follow - http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/

Jammy Donut

Why did you accept the car if the jobs wern't done?
Have you it in writing the agreed to fix the 2 problems?

George Dalton

A car is not the same as a fridge or a tv. Cars break all the time and have to be repaired. In a way it is better for these things to happen now while under warranty rather than in a years time when the cost of repairs will have to come out of your own pocket.

You are entitled to have it fixed. I don't believe you are entitled to a refund. Even a brand new car would be repaired in the event of a fault rather than taken back and the money refunded.

Out of interest how old is the car?

robclay26

car is 2010 with 10K on it, it is genuine.
The main fault is the engine warning lights on now and this only happened today.
The other 2 problems are i believe in writing, its my fathers car, not mine

Tigger

Engine light isn't nessiciarly a big deal
Just ask them to fix the issues. I dont work with cars but I do work with the public and when someone comes in with an issues and puts it to me in a nice way that I should fix the issue I go over and above to make it right. However if someone comes in in a confrontational manner and being unreasonable I will do only what I must.

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

A car is not the same as a fridge or a tv. Cars break all the time and have to be repaired. ...

So do fridges and TVs which is why there is consumer legislation in place to protect buyers.

George Dalton wrote: »

... In a way it is better for these things to happen now while under warranty rather than in a years time when the cost of repairs will have to come out of your own pocket.

Why try to perpetuate the "warranty" myth George?

Even if no warranty is specified by the seller (motor trader) the purchaser still has recourse to legal remedies. I disagree that having faults show up early is good - my thoughts would be "what's gonna happen 12 months from now?". It is also untrue that faults in 12 month's time are the purchaser's responsibility; they may well be the traders if a court so decides.

The trick here is for consumers not to buy the warranty / out of warranty bull**** and protect their rights with the legislation in place, which is amongst the best in class in Europe.

A warranty, if one is offered, is in addition to the consumer rights laid down in law. A warranty cannot replace or supercede a consumer's legal rights for cars or anything else. The page I linked to has a special section on Motor cars to highlight this very point.

Tigger

From the citizens info link

As a consumer you have the same rights if you buy an item second hand as if it is new. In this case if you find a fault with the car after you have bought it the dealer is the person who must set matters right

Set matters right means a repair a refund or a replacement
All second hand cars with small issues will be repaired and to demand a refund out of hand is illogical.
Is there a reason to change a perfectly good car over a door being unaligned and a interior clip?

As I said the engine light could be a small issue
But this is all advice if you want to go in guns blazing thats always an option.
Make sure you mention Joe Duffy and your solicitor .

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

Why try to perpetuate the "warranty" myth George?

I'm not trying to perpetrate any "myth" I don't understand what you mean by this.

mathepac wrote: »

Even if no warranty is specified by the seller (motor trader) the purchaser still has recourse to legal remedies.

Not relevant in this case.

mathepac wrote: »

I disagree that having faults show up early is good - my thoughts would be "what's gonna happen 12 months from now?"

It doesn't work like that. Just because a car breaks early in your ownership doesn't mean it will turn out to be unreliable, and vice versa. Rejecting a car over a trivial issue is hasty and short sighted and could end up costing you more in the long run.

All cars have certain common issues or failures. Very often the solution to this problem will be an improved or upgraded parts which will not suffer a repeat failure. So in these cases it is best for this failure to happen shortly after buying the car. That way you get the fault fixed with no fuss or need for legal recourse or any other nonsense and you also get an improved part which will not fail again. That is why I said in my original post that it can be better to have these problems shortly after purchase.

mathepac wrote: »

It is also untrue that faults in 12 month's time are the purchaser's responsibility; they may well be the traders if a court so decides.

Have you got any evidence of court decisions finding that a garage must pay for a failed coilpack on a car 12 months after purchase? I seriously doubt it. The scenario you are suggesting is illogical and not representative of the real world.

the culture of deference

is the car still under manufacturer's warranty?

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

I'm not trying to perpetrate any "myth" I don't understand what you mean by this...

That is precisely what you are trying to do in this thread, IMHO.

You and others in the motor trade (I include in this group those who sell 3 or 4 cars a year on sites like donedeal.ie while posing as private individuals) constantly attack posts referring to purchasers' rights under the sales of goods & supply of services act or when links to the www.citizensinformation.ie site are posted to help confused purchasers to educate themselves.

George Dalton wrote: »

... Not relevant in this case...

Only in your opinion, consumer law sees it differently..

Cars being sold to the public by traders as "Trade vehicle", "Sold as seen", "No warranty" etc are attempts to deprive purchasers of their legal rights, and the sellers are breaking the law. Traders also seem to think they can limit warranties to "engine and gearbox only, bud" when in fact they can't. Nor can they set a time-limit on a purchaser's recourse as implied by your "12-month" remark.

George Dalton wrote: »

...
It doesn't work like that. ... Rejecting a car over a trivial issue is hasty and short sighted and could end up costing you more in the long run. ...

I never suggested anywhere that anyone reject anything. I posted a link that pointed OP to his/her rights and protections the law provides.

George Dalton wrote: »

... Have you got any evidence of court decisions finding that a garage must pay for a failed coilpack on a car 12 months after purchase? I seriously doubt it. The scenario you are suggesting is illogical and not representative of the real world.

The problem is that thanks to the propaganda and myths created and perpetuated about warranties, few consumers are currently aware of their rights and even fewer people have actually defended these rights in court, the main obstacle here being cost and the fact that a lot of the time private individuals with limited means wind up fighting traders and distributors with superior resources.

I'm trying to get this changed for car-buyers, tv-buyers, fridge-buyers, broadband-buyers, etc. I'm trying to do my bit to end the history of the small guy always loses in Ireland. Defensive, inaccurate and/or misleading posts don't help.

oregano

Op, I have not read the terms of your bill of sale but I doubt you can expect a refund yet. Email the vendor, explain that you need return the car to have all the problems resolved at the same time, and then book it in. Explain that if the issues are not resolved upon collection of the car to your satisfaction you will seek a full refund. I'd be confident they'll fix it.

Ignore nonsense about tvs and fridges, you bought a used car, and your warranty is to repair unexpected issues which may arise. Very few dealers try to get you to waive your statutory rights when you sign a bill of sale, and it's unlikely you did so.

If, for some other reason, you just don't want the car anymore, tell the vendor. See if he will take it back.

From reading him on previous threads, I'd take George daltons advice if I were you, he seems to know his stuff.

pred racer

George Dalton wrote: »

A car is not the same as a fridge or a tv. Cars break all the time and have to be repaired. In a way it is better for these things to happen now while under warranty rather than in a years time when the cost of repairs will have to come out of your own pocket.

You are entitled to have it fixed. I don't believe you are entitled to a refund. Even a brand new car would be repaired in the event of a fault rather than taken back and the money refunded.

Out of interest how old is the car?

I'd have to agree with George here.
Allow dealer to repair, this will only become a consumer issue if they dont.
And of course its better for issues to present themselves while the warranty is still in effect. Again it only becomes aproblem if they keep re-appearing.

I'm a consumer btw, ive never made a profit on a car in me life:rolleyes:

colm_mcm

On the fridge analogy, you wouldn't expect a used fridge to be as good as a new one

mathepac

pred racer wrote: »

... this will only become a consumer issue if they dont...

It becomes a conummer issue if the product is

1. not as described
2. not fit for purpose
3. not of merchantable quality

We don't know how the car was described but any car that throws up error lights so soon after purchase is unlikely to satisfy criteria 2 and 3 above under the consumer legislation.

So it's a consumer issue right now and OP needs to follow the procedure I linked to above.

pred racer wrote: »

... And of course its better for issues to present themselves while the warranty is still in effect. Again it only becomes aproblem if they keep re-appearing...

Incorrect, I believe you need to read the site I linked to so as to educate yourself.

pred racer wrote: »

...
I'm a consumer btw, ive never made a profit on a car in me life:rolleyes:

I guess so but unfortunately like so many other consumers, you seem to lack any knowledge of your rights and protections under law. More concerning, is you don't seem too worried that you can be exploited.

I'm not sure how the "profit" remark relates to anything.

ninty9er

As already said an engine light isn't necessarily a major issue. Ring them, tell them and ask them to fix the other 2 issues while it's in.

If the issue presents itself again soon, bring it back and get it repaired again.

If it happens a third time, then I'd be getting pissy and threatening to contact the franchise distributor.

But to answer your question, no, you are not entitled to a refund, as there is no evidence that the dealer knew this issue would occur, so they also have a right to attempt a repair.

oregano

colm_mcm wrote: »

On the fridge analogy, you wouldn't expect a used fridge to be as good as a new one

The traction/abs/ light came on my fridge yesterday. A sensor had popped out of the back of the fridge when I was stuffing it full of lettuce. Should I sue?

Seriously though, op should speak to a practicing qualified solicitor if he wants all his money back on a 2010 car this soon into the purchase, particularly if he hasn't yet given the vendor an opportunity to repair the defect.

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

That is precisely what you are trying to do in this thread, IMHO.

Well you are entitled to your opinion of course but I can assure you I have no agenda in posting here nor am I trying to propagate anything. The OP asked if he could return the car for a refund. I said not in this case he can't. I still stand by that answer as the correct one. The OP should certainly have the three trivial issues with the car sorted out in a timely and competent manner. No more and no less.

mathepac wrote: »

You and others in the motor trade (I include in this group those who sell 3 or 4 cars a year on sites like donedeal.ie while posing as private individuals) constantly attack posts referring to purchasers' rights under the sales of goods & supply of services act or when links to the www.citizensinformation.ie site are posted to help confused purchasers to educate themselves.

I have read all the relevant information and like you have formed my own conclusions from it. Just because I post based on my conclusions which differ from yours does not mean I am attacking anyones rights under that act. I simply disagree with your interpretation of it.

As for the Donedeal "private sale" types, don't even get me started on that shower. Can you imagine how difficult it is for a garage to compete with that lot?

mathepac wrote: »

Only in your opinion, consumer law sees it differently..

Cars being sold to the public by traders as "Trade vehicle", "Sold as seen", "No warranty" etc are attempts to deprive purchasers of their legal rights, and the sellers are breaking the law.

I will repeat myself here. This is irrelevant in the context of this thread. The situation does not arise here. Why bring an unrelated matter up in this thread? In any case there is a provision in the sale of goods act which in my opinion would cover these kind of sales, but as I said this is a separate debate entirely.

mathepac wrote: »

I never suggested anywhere that anyone reject anything. I posted a link that pointed OP to his/her rights and protections the law provides.
The problem is that thanks to the propaganda and myths created and perpetuated about warranties, few consumers are currently aware of their rights and even fewer people have actually defended these rights in court, the main obstacle here being cost and the fact that a lot of the time private individuals with limited means wind up fighting traders and distributors with superior resources.

I'm trying to get this changed for car-buyers, tv-buyers, fridge-buyers, broadband-buyers, etc. I'm trying to do my bit to end the history of the small guy always loses in Ireland. Defensive, inaccurate and/or misleading posts don't help.

You are the one who is misleading people here in my opinion. You seem to think that there is some kind of provision in law which allows for a pretty much unlimited warranty period for goods purchased. You keep posting links and referring to the sale of goods act, but can you actually quote from it and back up your claims with something concrete? Because I have read the same information you have and I am not seeing whatever it is you are seeing.

One final thing also, if everything changed come tomorrow morning and all of a sudden the scenarios you are outlining became common practice, can you imagine how much more expensive everything would have to become for companies to cover the additional warranty claims without going bankrupt?!

mathepac

oregano wrote: »

The traction/abs/ light came on my fridge yesterday. A sensor had popped out of the back of the fridge when I was stuffing it full of lettuce. Should I sue? ...

You should probably ask George as he's the one who pointed out that he knows a car isn't the same as a tv or a fridge . I've just finished changing the tyres on the telly and I too knackered.

oregano wrote: »

... Should I sue? ...

I don't know. What did the citizens information web-site suggest you do?

BTW: What's the purpose of a bill of sale in a transaction between a consumer and a motor-trader?

oregano

BTW: What's the purpose of a bill of sale in a transaction between a consumer and a motor-trader?[/Quote]

The revenue like to be able to see how much money I take in. I like to keep a record of the kms, date, and terms of what were agreed on the bill of sale so that should revenue want any info it is all in the one spot. It is also handy should issues arise post sale, such as the time a lady wanted her wing fixed when she hit her pillar 2 months after purchase. I had foolishly not put on the bill of sale that driver error was not covered under warranty. It is now included on my bill of sale.

I suggest you read a dealers terms on the bill of sale before judging that it goes against consumer law.

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

Well you are entitled to your opinion of course but I can assure you I have no agenda in posting here nor am I trying to propagate anything. The OP asked if he could return the car for a refund. I said not in this case he can't. I still stand by that answer as the correct one. The OP should certainly have the three trivial issues with the car sorted out in a timely and competent manner. No more and no less....

I think George you need to re-read the thread (as a starting point).

The very first response OP had was from me, correctly pointing him/her to the citizen's information web-site which details the steps a consumer must follow in making a complaint about a product or seeking a remedy.

Doing this avoids the difficulty of replying only with opinions, no matter how expert, because even experts will differ at times.

I was happy to leave it there without further comment when the "tvs and fridges" stuff came in, implying that cars were different to consumer electronics and that warranties were all that's important where cars are concerned. This annoyed me intensely as it's not true but someone reading the opinion of an "expert", perceived or otherwise could take the wrong route to resolving their complaint.

George Dalton wrote: »

... I have read all the relevant information and like you have formed my own conclusions from it. Just because I post based on my conclusions which differ from yours does not mean I am attacking anyones rights under that act. I simply disagree with your interpretation of it...

You never stated that in this or any other thread; you simply continued with the "warranties important" theme, IMHO.

George Dalton wrote: »

... As for the Donedeal "private sale" types, don't even get me started on that shower. Can you imagine how difficult it is for a garage to compete with that lot?...

I know what these feckers are doing to decent traders and buyers alike, financially and reputation-wise; locking up is too good for them.

George Dalton wrote: »

... I will repeat myself here. This is irrelevant in the context of this thread. The situation does not arise here. Why bring an unrelated matter up in this thread? In any case there is a provision in the sale of goods act which in my opinion would cover these kind of sales, but as I said this is a separate debate entirely....

We'll have to agree to differ here I'm afraid.

George Dalton wrote: »

... You are the one who is misleading people here in my opinion. You seem to think that there is some kind of provision in law which allows for a pretty much unlimited warranty period for goods purchased. ....

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I have stated that dealers cannot arbitrarily limit the time or scope of their "warranty" nor can they attempt to interfere with a consumer's rights; to do so is illegal.

The scope and the time of a consumer's recourse to a remedy in the event of a disagreement can only be decided by a court.

I have never stated or implied in this or any other thread anything about a "pretty much unlimited warranty". I have posted about consumer rights, the sale of goods act, etc. In another thread someone in trying to ridicule the case I was making mentioned about buying a ten-year-old car driving the crap out of it for 5/6 years and then suing the dealer when it broke. Is there any chance this is what you are thinking of?

George Dalton wrote: »

One final thing also, if everything changed come tomorrow morning and all of a sudden the scenarios you are outlining became common practice, can you imagine how much more expensive everything would have to become for companies to cover the additional warranty claims without going bankrupt?!

So what do you see as the alternative? That consumers continue to accept poor services, lousy products and corporates trampling on their rights for the sake of keeping prices down?

For example "I thought you said you wanted a car Mrs and I got you a nice red one. Where's the problem? Oh you want one that works? Jeyes, I'd have to charge you more for that."

If companies start to whinge they have to charge more because consumers insist on their rights and decent products and services, then I have an answer for them - make a quality product in the first place and no-one will insist on refunds or repairs or replacements. Customers will praise you to the rafters and queue up to buy your stuff and you'll make more money than you imagined when you were the DelBoy of your industry.

Oh and all my observations about members of the motor trade being anti-consumer legislation have just been proved correct. The motor-traders continue to resist the notion that consumers have rights and continue to thank each other for their observations; this is like an SIMI meeting.

mathepac

oregano wrote: »

... I suggest you read a dealers terms on the bill of sale before judging that it goes against consumer law.

Oh believe me I have. Ask Yorky's lad how much he enjoyed eating an SIMI contract a few years ago

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. I have stated that dealers cannot arbitrarily limit the time or scope of their "warranty" nor can they attempt to interfere with a consumer's rights; to do so is illegal.

The scope and the time of a consumer's recourse to a remedy in the event of a disagreement can only be decided by a court.

Can I ask for the information source that you are drawing these conclusions from please? Because I simply do not see it anywhere in the sale of goods act.

mathepac wrote: »

I have never stated or implied in this or any other thread anything about a "pretty much unlimited warranty".

That is the implication of the scenario you are portraying though. If a warranty period is not defined by the seller then it is open ended as far as a seller is concerned. Obviously this has potentially massive financial implications for the seller so the selling price of the car would have to reflect this.

mathepac wrote: »

I have posted about consumer rights, the sale of goods act, etc. In another thread someone in trying to ridicule the case I was making mentioned about buying a ten-year-old car driving the crap out of it for 5/6 years and then suing the dealer when it broke. Is there any chance this is what you are thinking of?

No I don't remember ever seeing that thread/post.

mathepac wrote: »

So what do you see as the alternative? That consumers continue to accept poor services, lousy products and corporates trampling on their rights for the sake of keeping prices down?

Not at all. I suggest that people do their homework and know in advance what kind of deal they are entering into. Whether they are deciding to risk buying cheap with no warranty or playing it safe paying a bit extra for a long warranty.

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

I was happy to leave it there without further comment when the "tvs and fridges" stuff came in, implying that cars were different to consumer electronics and that warranties were all that's important where cars are concerned. This annoyed me intensely as it's not true but someone reading the opinion of an "expert", perceived or otherwise could take the wrong route to resolving their complaint.

My point with the TV and fridge comment was that while it is reasonable to expect that a broken kettle or toaster would be simply replaced or refunded when returned to the seller, the same can not be expected with a secondhand car that has some trivial issues.

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

... Whether they are deciding to risk buying cheap with no warranty or playing it safe paying a bit extra for a long warranty.

But you're falling into your own trap George; you cannot limit the scope or time of a buyer's recourse in the event of a problem - that's for a court to decide if the purchaser can't reach agreement with you

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

But you're falling into your own trap George; you cannot limit the scope or time of a buyer's recourse in the event of a problem - that's for a court to decide if the purchaser can't reach agreement with you

You still haven't shown me the source you are drawing that conclusion from.

bucketybuck

George Dalton wrote: »

Can I ask for the information source that you are drawing these conclusions from please? Because I simply do not see it anywhere in the sale of goods act.

I wouldn't waste your time. I have been down this road before with this particular poster, and he simply doesn't understand the myriad of issues surrounding consumer rights with regards to motor vehicles. All you will get is the same "But, but, but, the consumer rights act says they have to give you your money back, durr". He genuinely seems to think the consumer rights act is some magic law that give consumers their money back each and every time.

I welcome the day he has to put it to the test in a court of law.

mathepac

Portion of Section 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.

......

(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.

R.O.R

mathepac wrote: »

Blah, blah, blah.

Ever tried to return a car due to issues?

I have.

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

Portion of Section 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.

......

(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.

None of that is at all relevant to what you are saying in this thread. That just states the vehicle must be free from defects when sold, which is not the same thing as a warranty for any problems which develop subsequently.

guil

this is priceless, quoting acts from the staute book and not understanding what the wording means

mathepac

bucketybuck wrote: »

I wouldn't waste your time. I have been down this road before with this particular poster, and he simply doesn't understand the myriad of issues surrounding consumer rights with regards to motor vehicles. ...

In the interests of sharing your vast knowledge, maybe you could volunteer to post here what it is I don't know or understand.

bucketybuck wrote: »

.. All you will get is the same "But, but, but, the consumer rights act says they have to give you your money back, durr". He genuinely seems to think the consumer rights act is some magic law that give consumers their money back each and every time....

I certainly don't remember posting any such thing, but then my posts were aimed at people who were both articulate and literate, who wouldn't have mistaken the content of my posts for the nonsense you've posted here.

bucketybuck wrote: »

.. I welcome the day he has to put it to the test in a court of law ....

The good news is I have, twice. I'm happy to report that one case was settled out of court by the defendants and my legal advisors won the second.

Anything else I can help with that you have misread / misunderstood / misinterpreted? Do you want me to type s-l-o-w-l-y or in BIG letters for you or to use monosyllabic grunts to aid your comprehension and retention?

If you can show me where I wrote the stuff you attribute to me, or anything I wrote that comes even close, I will willingly donate €10,000 via boards.ie to a charity of your choice. If you can't, then put €10,000 into the OLCH account in Crumlin via boards.ie otherwise you're just another internet wind-bag and a coward, oh and you probably work in the motor trade, the worst sin of all the way this and other threads have panned out..

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

None of that is at all relevant to what you are saying in this thread. That just states the vehicle must be free from defects when sold, which is not the same thing as a warranty for any problems which develop subsequently.

guil wrote: »

this is priceless, quoting acts from the staute book and not understanding what the wording means

Threads like this seem to attract rabble fairly quickly. Do yo want a loan of my specs?

that's only section 13 guys, read the bit about the statute of limitations para 7. Read sections 31, 40 & 46 for more interesting info. Read Section 22 re: the 1893 act, section 10 replacing sections of the 1893 act and get back to me.

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

that's only section 13, read the bit about the statute of limitations para 7. Read sections 31, 40 & 46 for more interesting info. Read Section 22 re: the 1893 act, section 10 replacing sections of the 1893 act and get back to me.

This all makes sense now. You need to look up a definition of the word 'warranty' and re-read the act to see which definition is used in that context. You will find it is not what you think.


I would like to direct you to Sections 15-19 of the act which deal with the issue of a guarantee, which I believe is what you actually mean when you refer to a warranty:

15.—In sections 16 to 19, “guarantee” means any document, notice or other written statement, howsoever described, supplied by a manufacturer or other supplier, other than a retailer, in connection with the supply of any goods and indicating that the manufacturer or other supplier will service, repair or otherwise deal with the goods following purchase.

16.—(1) A guarantee shall be clearly legible and shall refer only to specific goods or to one category of goods.

(2) A guarantee shall state clearly the name and address of the person supplying the guarantee.

(3) A guarantee shall state clearly the duration of the guarantee from the date of purchase but different periods may be stated for different components of any goods.

(4) A guarantee shall state clearly the procedure for presenting a claim under the guarantee which procedure shall not be more difficult than ordinary or normal commercial procedure.

(5) A guarantee shall state clearly what the manufacturer or other supplier undertakes to do in relation to the goods and what charges, if any, including the cost of carriage, the buyer must meet in relation to such undertakings.

(6) It shall be an offence for the manufacturer or other supplier of goods to supply in connection with the goods a guarantee which fails to comply with this section.

mathepac

George Dalton wrote: »

This all makes sense now. You need to look up a definition of the word 'warranty' and re-read the act to see which definition is used in that context. You will find it is not what you think.

no i haven't referenced the terminology ieh act

George Dalton wrote: »

I would like to direct you to Sections 15-19 of the act which deal with the issue of a guarantee, which I believe is what you actually mean when you refer to a warranty:

I make no specific reference to either warranty or guarantee and specifically not guarantee as in the act it means "hard-copy".

bucketybuck

mathepac wrote: »

If you can show me where I wrote the stuff you attribute to me, or anything I wrote that comes even close, I will willingly donate €10,000 via boards.ie to a charity of your choice. If you can't, then put €10,000 into the OLCH account in Crumlin via boards.ie otherwise you're just another internet wind-bag and a coward, oh and you probably work in the motor trade, the worst sin of all the way this and other threads have panned out..

Haha, did you just go Internet hard man on me? No problem mate, check your bank account, I just deposited €10000, plus €5000 for your trouble.

Here is the last thread you peddled your act in. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056600834

As I said, I have been round this with you, and I don't like repeating myself. I just wish you actually knew what you were talking about when you give people advice in threads such as these.

colm_mcm

Let's keep this civil

George Dalton

mathepac wrote: »

no i haven't referenced the terminology ieh act

I make no specific reference to either warranty or guarantee and specifically not guarantee as in the act it means "hard-copy".

The word warranty as used in the act means a condition or a stipulation. It is used as such throughout the act and the sections you name above contain nothing to back up the claims you have made in this thread.

The only section of the act that deals with problems that arise after a sale is the section about guarantees which I quoted above. The quoted section is clear enough so I don't need to repeat it but suffice to say it undermines your argument pretty comprehensively.

Jimbob 83

What type of car is it OP ?

George Dalton

Jimbob 83 wrote: »

What type of car is it OP ?

Given the symptoms my money is on an Audi A3 diesel :pac:

Jimbob 83

I dunno it has traction control

mathepac

bucketybuck wrote: »

.. No problem mate ..

If you must address me, use my boards.ie user-name please. Please don't associate me with the scummy, skanger soubriquet.

George Dalton

The A3s all have traction control, they also have a dodgy brake light switch. When it fails it causes the glow plug light to flash and the traction control light to come on. The 3dr A3s also have problems with the doors dropping on their hinges and needing adjustment.

guil

George has already quoted what I was going to but nowhere does it say anything about how long the seller should be liable for, the only thing close is this

12.—(1) In a contract for the sale of goods there is an implied warranty that spare parts and an adequate aftersale service will be made available by the seller in such circumstances as are stated in an offer, description or advertisement by the seller on behalf of the manufacturer or on his own behalf and for such period as is so stated or, if no period is so stated, for a reasonable period.

bucketybuck

mathepac wrote: »

If you must address me, use my boards.ie user-name please. Please don't associate me with the scummy, skanger soubriquet.

Sure thing buddy.

George Dalton

guil wrote: »

George has already quoted what I was going to but nowhere does it say anything about how long the seller should be liable for, the only thing close is this

FYI, that provision is for the manufacturer rather than the retailer. It is to ensure that car manufacturers (for example) are obliged to provide spare parts for a given model for a reasonable period of time after the model is no longer produced. So that people like me who can't afford the current model S4 can still get parts for the older iterations from Audi.

zzantara

Please excuse me if I am repeating what was already said on this tread but in the interest of helping you I will clarify your rights etc:
A Motor Dealer cannot sell a vehicle to a member of the public without a guarantee, this guarantee is stated by law to be for "a reasonable length of time" that is not specified in Consumer Law but is to be decided in each case that is in dispute.
You cannot sign away your rights in any circumstance, these "sold as seen" paperwork are not worth a toss under Consumer Law.
The only exception is a transaction between members of the Motor Trade.
After you purchase a Car and issues arise you are entitled to repair/replacement or refund, you must give the Dealer an opportunity to repair before moving to replace/refund. A general accepted rule is that after three failed repair attempts you can them move to replace /refund.
Under Consumer Law the Dealer also has rights , this is taken to mean that you should give him a reasonable importunity to repair the Vehicle before demanding a replacement/refund.
I hop this clarifies the position for you.

George Dalton

In my opinion you are incorrect.

The act states that in general a dealer cannot sell a car to a member of the public with pre existing faults. (there is an exclusion to this in section 13(3)) However any faults which develop after the sale are subject to the nature of the guarantee which was agreed with the customer at the time of the sale.

January

We bought a car in February. It was a 10 year old car with a one month warranty on it as agreed.

Two days after we bought the car the engine management light came on, brought it back to dealer and he "sorted it" according to him.

10 days after we bought it, it rained, we put on the window wipers to find they were put on incorrectly or something because a big scrape appeared on the windscreen and there was a horrible screeching noise (turns out the hinge was broken on it).

3 days after the warranty expired the engine management light came on again, brought it back to dealer and they put it on diagnostics and said it would take a few days to fix. We asked for our money back because we didn't have any faith in the car any more, he handed it over straight away.

zzantara

Under Consumer Law the Dealer must be given a reasonable opportunity to repair the Car, the only exception to this is if the Car was sold in an not roadworthy or unsafe condition.

The buyer also has to be seem to be acting in a reasonable manner, the Dealer also has rights under the Act.

The aim should be to find a a fair and reasonable solution, not to get involved in conflict

Jimbob 83

That sounds like a good faith gesture by a dealer interested in maintaining a good rep, fair play to them.

Most would have instantly come up with a fix as soon as warrenty ran out after blithering over what was wrong during it