Used car - dud battery "not covered under warranty"

[kinkyfuckery]

Purchased a used car from a dealer on 30/09, collected and paid balance on 06/09.
Drove it home that day, and out for a drive later that afternoon.

Couple of days later noticed it had a slow puncture, so went to change for the spare wheel, and found the battery was flat. Had it jump started, and got tyre changed. Found battery was flat again a few days later.

My dad took the battery away to charge and found it is not holding a charge. I don't know much about cars, but my dad said "Battery not holding a charge. keeps tripping charger all cells full." He emailed dealer yesterday to request it be replaced, and was told "unfortunatly its not covered under warranty"

Can they do this? Surely as battery was knackered when they sold it, they have to replace it as it wasn't fit for purpose? They must have had to damn well jump start it before it's MOT and before we collected it!!

What are my rights? Thanks.

[LIZS]

If it was a used car it may well have sat on a forecourt for a while without being driven much. Batteries fail and are rarely covered by a warranty. As long as it is not the alternator it is down to goodwill whether they choose to replace . They don't cost a lot at places like Halfords .

[neiljames77]

I'm afraid that most second hand car warranties only cover the running gear. Batteries, tyres, brake pads etc are seen as consumables.

[kinkyfuckery]

According to dealer, car had only come in 2 days previous to my putting down a deposit. MOT carried out on 02/09

• sorry just realised an error in my OP, car was purchased on 30/08

[kinkyfuckery]

We have found battery for less than £40. Is it really not covered? That's shitty. Was willing to suck up the cost of either fixing or replacing tyre (won't know until I can get it to the garage!) but this just seems like another kick in the teeth. Horrible experience for my first car

[SwedishEdith]

How old is the car? Maybe ring Trading Standards to see what they think? If it had only come in 2 days ago it's unlikely the failing battery wouldn't have been spotted

[kinkyfuckery]

Car is 53 plate. One previous owner.

Think I may phone Trading Standards tomorrow, thanks.

[kinkyfuckery]

That thanks is to everyone who has replied by the way; very fast responses!

[minkymuskyslyoldstoaty]

what does it detail on your purchase contract/receipt?

[SwedishEdith]

Depends on the size of the battery but probably due to be replaced anyway. This wisdom is based on replacing my 10 year old battery this week. But, for the cost it's a shame the garage didn't replace it for you

[neiljames77]

I'd go down the goodwill route first. They won't want to get their solicitors involved over a £40 battery.

[kinkyfuckery]

minky It doesn't say anything about warranty or terms of purchase at all as far as I can see!

Swedish and neil Think I may email again and quote the Sale of Goods Act about not being fit for purpose etc.

[neiljames77]

Don't you also have 30 days from the day of purchase to get your money back if not satisfied?
I could be wrong though.

[prh47bridge]

The warranty is irrelevant. This is not a question of goodwill. The Sale of Goods Act covers second hand goods as well. The car must:

• be of satisfactory quality given its age and mileage
• match the description
• be fit for purpose

It doesn't matter whether or not they'd spotted the flat battery. The car is not of satisfactory quality nor is it fit for purpose until a new battery has been fitted.

You have the right to reject the car. As you've had it nearly 3 weeks you need to do that immediately. Alternatively you have the right to compensation to cover the cost of fixing the fault. If the dealer continues to deny liability you will have to take them to the Small Claims Court. If you need to go down that route you should write to them setting a deadline for paying up and saying you will take legal action if they don't. It doesn't cost much to take action in the Small Claims Court, you can reclaim your fees from the dealer and you won't need a lawyer.

[Huppopapa]

Forgive me but there is some absolute twaddle being talked on this thread.

A battery is a consumable. So is fuel. Have you found that the car tends to run out of fuel from time to time? When it does that, does your opinion about whether the car is fit for purpose change? No. It remains entirely fit for purpose and as described. You should always be very wary of people expressing absolute opinions about legal matters - the law is rarely that clear - but I should be astonished if you have any right to reject this vehicle.

Consumables will not be included in a warranty, nor would it be assumed that they were in the event that a warranty did not mention them. Rather any court would be likely to want to see a specific term in the warranty to say that the warranty covered tyres, fuel, windscreen fluid, wipers, batteries and the other things that one gets through using a car, if it was going to find that they were covered.

You could spend £80 on issuing a claim in the small claims court, have a directions appointment and a trial (so requiring two attendances at court for which you will not get any recompense) and in about April of next year you will get a result. You are likely to lose as you only have partial evidence. It is in the nature of modern batteries that their performance can fall off a cliff. They work. And then they don't. The model we remember from 30 years ago of a battery getting weaker over time just doesn't apply any more. There is a long explanation why but this post isn't the place for it.

So consider this possibility: that the former owner drove it on the motorway every day thereby charging it, so even though it was weak (which would not be unusual with a ten year old battery) that fact was never noticed. It was taken into the garage that sold it and sat about for a couple of days, maybe including a couple of battery-draining short journeys. It started a few times but then came the time it didn't. Perhaps the lad who went to fetch it couldn't start it, hitched up the booster that ALL reputable dealers have on their forecourts and brought it round, running, to the salesman. Did the salesman know? If he did, would he have thought it was sinister given that this is a daily phenomenon when selling old cars? Can you prove that he misled you? If so was it a misrepresentation such that you can rely upon it to repudiate the contract? Law really isn't as straightforward as some will make it out to be. You don't know enough about the history of this car or even what happened in the few days prior to buying it, nor are you in a position to get it. The cost in time and perhaps money in trying to gather that evidence will make the price of a new battery pale into in insignificance.

If I were the garage I would certainly defend the claim as I'd want to avoid the precedent of someone having extended a warranty in this way. I might send a member of staff so as to be able to claim half a day's loss of earnings from you.

BUT! Once we have calmed down and stepped away from the law, it is a bit shitty to sell a car with a dodgy battery. Trading standards will not have the slightest interest as no law has been broken, but the garage might well be concerned to sustain its reputation for fair prices and fair dealing (if it has one). If you in an entirely reasonable and friendly manner were to contact them, point out how disappointed you are that they have sold you a car with a dud battery, acknowledge that it is not covered by the warranty but point out that one might reasonably expect a garage of their repute to replace it as a goodwill gesture - without any admission on their part that this was a knowing error on their part - they might well do so (the trade price for the battery being rather less than you would pay). Again, if I were them I would do so and probably say sorry while I did it. If you threatened me with law or trading standards I'd invite you to get on with it.

Good luck with them. They have no legal duty to replace it, but I for one think their moral duty should extend to a battery!

HP

[prh47bridge]

The last poster has given very poor advice. They appear to have little understanding of the Sale of Goods Act or the small claims track.

Yes, batteries do eventually wear out sometimes. So do lots of other parts of a car. But to equate it with running out of fuel and call it a consumable is ridiculous. By that standard most of the car is consumable - it all wears out as it gets older. The battery is covered by the Sale of Goods Act along with every other part of the car. It is obviously reasonable for the car to run out of fuel. It is not reasonable for the car to be sold with a battery that is not working. And it doesn't matter whether or not the dealer knew the battery was not working. Under the Sale of Goods Act they are liable for any faults regardless of whether or not they knew the fault existed at the time of sale.

The warranty is a complete irrelevance. The court will not be interested in the terms of the warranty. The warranty can add to your Sale of Goods Act rights. It cannot take them away. If the court agrees that you have been sold a car with a dud battery they won't look at the warranty to see whether or not you are covered. You are not claiming that the dealer is in breach of the warranty nor are you trying to extend the terms of the warranty. You are claiming that the dealer is in breach of the Sale of Goods Act. Contrary to what the previous poster appears to think there have been cases where people have claimed successfully on the basis of a second hand car sold with a faulty battery.

If you make the claim online it will cost £25. If a hearing is required it will cost a further £25. That's it. There will be no further fee if more hearings are required. And all of that can be reclaimed from the garage when you win. Even if the garage won (which they wouldn't on the facts given) they would not be able to reclaim loss of earnings for sending a member of staff to the proceedings.

Yes, you should try to resolve this without going to court if possible. But the law is on your side and if the dealer refuses to give way you can take action.

[Huppopapa]

I defer to you on the fees prh47bridge: I am out of date!
But I have been unable to find a reported case of someone being able to reject a car because a battery was dud. Rejecting a battery because it is dud, yes, but not a car. Could you give a reference as I would be genuinely interested to know so I can send the message round to the advisers at the legal surgery I run.
Thanks,
HP

[Huppopapa]

And the court certainly can award loss of earnings of a witness though not of a litigant.

[MsAdorabelleDearheartVonLipwig]

Jeeesus, people, breathe. The ops long gone, you bored her to death. It's only a bloody battery. Bad luck yes, but you can pick another one up fairly easily. I'm not suprised it's knackered, the bloody car is eleven years old!

[prh47bridge]

Yes the court can award loss of earnings where a witness has had to take time off work to attend court but the court would not award loss of earnings where the witness concerned is an employee of one of the parties to the litigation. The court would expect the litigant to pay the employee so that they would not suffer any loss of earnings. They would view any attempt to claim for loss of earnings in this situation as an artificial attempt to inflate costs which is not allowed.

[kinkyfuckery]

Wow, I asked a simple question. prh47 where did I say anything about rejecting the car?

Anyway, since this enlightening thread, more has come to the surface and after uncovering far more, on advice of Trading Standards, I am writing recorded delivery to the dealer today to attempt to return the car for a full refund.

Thanks for advice folks.

[Hereward1332]

To be fair to prh7, when you talk about quoting the Sale of Goods act questioning whether the car is fit for purpose, it does sound as though you are considering rejecting it.

[kinkyfuckery]

The Sale of Goods act also related to having faulty goods repaired.

[prh47bridge]

I set out your legal options - rejecting the car or getting compensation for the cost of getting the fault fixed since it didn't seem the dealer was willing to fix the fault for you. And since you have written to the dealer to attempt to return the car for a full refund it seems you have indeed taken the option of rejecting the car.

[kinkyfuckery]

Sorry if I'm being tetchy. Just a bit - reasonably I think - about spending £1.5K on my first car and getting to drive it once!

Trading Standards are confident the reported faults enable me to return the vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act.

Really hadn't picked this dealer to be the cowboy it is seeming they are (there is more that I have not put on this thread, as suggested in my earlier post), my parents have had two cars from them in the past and thought they'd just gotten unlucky!

[minkymuskyslyoldstoaty]

does seem a shame that you are giving up on a car you like for the sake of a battery.
perhaps the dealer will give you a new battery when if gets the letter.