To have gotten into this situation with car dealership and borrowed car?

[Carfarce]

We bought a used car from a dealership which within two weeks broke down due to major mechanical failure. On advice we took it back to dealership who agreed we would split repair costs (it wasn't really their fault, equally we did have some consumer protection) which seemed fair and amicable.

They told us the repairs would take 2-3 weeks and although we'd already been without a car for 2 weeks at this stage we were happy with this.

Today is the third week and from previous conversations we expected it back today or tomorrow but have been told it will now be another 2 weeks and a different remedy is proposed to that we agreed on (cheaper but not what we were advised by the AA and we aren't comfortable with it). We agreed to revert to original plan but the timescales won't be altered. This is we're told because it's August and people are away which we understand but would have appreciated communication so we knew what to expect.

The car dealership said we could have a courtesy car which we thought was reasonable and when we turned up a car was there, albeit it is filthy, dented, rusty, smelly etc. There is no formal agreement and although I am covered on their insurance for "test drives" I have found on calling my insurance I can't insure it fully comp as they suggested since I don't own the vehicle and therefore have no "insurance interest" according to my insurance company. They told us it was taxed but when we checked at home it isn't (maybe giving them the benefit of the doubt it just hasn't updated if they'd just done it)

So we now have this smelly vehicle on our drive and we don't know if it's taxed or insured (I will call the dealership in the morning before driving it) and I feel like a right idiot.

Is there an insurance solution in this scenario? I guess they can update their's to cover more but I'd like to see a copy. To be honest I'd like to return the damn thing as having no written courtesy agreement seems dodgy as hell. On the other hand we've already spent hundreds on hire cars and do need a vehicle really to get to appointments as public transport to one hospital we have attended for example takes four hours each way when it's otherwise a 40 minute drive.

They do seem trustworthy, just clueless in customer service. Their trust pilot reviews are excellent so just bad luck I guess.

OP, can you advise how old the car is and what mileage?

Paid in full, have discussed engine requirements (hence surprise at being told about alternate plan today - we don't want just a new head in case the damage is further down as the AA told us it probably was)

Nine year old, 78000

I do appreciate the feedback here and am reading with interest, but I disagree with posters who've said it's madness to have agreed to any arrangement on damages because I don't think the situation is as cut and dried as links may make it seem and the practical reality of life means we just want it sorted it the simplest way possible

That said, with hindsight I probably would have approached it differently

My dilemma about courtesy car does seem to be answered so hopefully I can sort that out tomorrow provided the tax is done! It is MOTed

That's a shame as you could have had a claim against the manufacturer rather than the garage. I think you need to speak to Trading Standards to at least know your rights. I deal with cars for work and for anyone asking how a repair takes so long, we have much newer cars in for repairs where manufacturers such as Mercedes/BMW can't tell you when parts are going to arrive and 3 months later you're still waiting! If after 7 days they still can't advise, they should provide a car but you have to be forceful. Won't help you OP but just a tip for anyone else in the future.

I would be very surprised if they didn’t know the law. It changed in 2015. Dh and I have only bought one used car in that time and I know that you would be covered.

This is a car dealership. Of course they know the law. They’re just pretending they don’t, looking innocent and pulling a fast one.

Some more info from another site. www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/quick-guides/returning-a-used-car?noredirect=true

The thing is, the fault has to be there at the point of sale (rocket lawyer link) which it wasn't although there probably is a case that the aux belt needed replacing. I don't know enough about mechanics to know for sure which way that would fall but we were told it would be tricky. I think though if we'd been adamant at the beginning we'd probably have had a stronger chance of just being given our money back

I think they have been utterly dire but I don't think they are trying to pull a fast one at all. I have met them a couple of times and that is not my impression at all, or I'd be taking different action

Sorry - law assumes it's there unless seller can prove otherwise, I see that

It’s as cut and dried as the car must be fit for purpose when sold by the dealer and two weeks isn’t long enough for it to be classed as normal wear and tear. Did the car not come with at least a minimum of 3 months warranty? Is the replacement engine the same spec and mileage as the old one and make sure the cam belt has been changed.

Another one here saying you shouldn't be paying a penny and that car isn't fit for purpose. It doesn't matter if they knew about the fault or not.

I bought a used car recently and an issue came up. Despite the fact it was highlighted as not covered by their warranty, because I was within 30 days, they're paying over £1k for it to be fully investigated and repaired at the relevant main dealership nearest to me.

Luckily I love the car and didn't really want to give it back.

I'll do a bit of research later on cases and precedents but the fault wasn't there when it left the garage and it is a wearing part so would have been subject to wear and tear which unfortunately struck in full just after we bought it. I agree it is currently unfit for purpose!

It did have a warranty but only up to £300. We didn't pay for the extended warranty, but that was only up to a certain amount too

Incidentally I also loved it!

I would suggest you seek more legal advice before doing anything at all. I too am gob smacked that you agreed to pay but before you spend anymore money, raise both the engine and the courtesy car with someone legally trained.

Personally I think that there is enough advice on here with links to proper sources but if you need more help then get it.

The 30 days is fine i.e. you took it back within 30 days. If they repaired it and it then got another fault and you returned it again, the 30 days would start again.

@Carfarce the warranty I was given was up to £500. Garage gave me green light to get full investigation at main dealer and today agreed to pay for replacement of part of the car they wouldn't have known was faulty. Main dealer has had my car a week and I have a brand new 19 plate courtesy car.

I rang Trading Standards before speaking to the garage which was very helpful.

It’s reasonable wear and tear from the time you’ve owned the vehicle, not the age of the vehicle. You would not ‘reasonably’ expect a cam belt to snap and ruin your engine within 2 weeks of ownership.
Where is the service history of the car did the dealership advise you that the cam belt was due for replacement. What are the dealership telling you about the service checks they perform on these cars they’re selling?
I had something similar and I would advise speaking to cab consumer rights and trading standards, you absolutely should not be paying half towards the costs.
Incidentally I had a dreadful time with a dealership, beginning with a v last year, they where beyond awful and my car was in and out for weeks at a time. I ended up taking it to an independent who couldn’t believe the mess they had made of my car. Fancy show rooms don’t always equal good service.

Dh just come in and spoken to him about your situation (he is in motor trade) and he says you should be covered on your own car insurance. Your insurance doesn’t just cover accidental damage to the bodywork but also the engine. It won’t cover the auxiliary belt, but it will cover the resulting damage from it snapping, which would be the engine damage.

Tell the dealership you are going to apply to go on Judge Rinder.

Doesn't matter about the point of sale. It HAS to last more than two weeks by ANY reasonable estimation. It's inherently not fit for purpose if it doesn't.

Man up or big girls blouse time and stand up to them you've been given a real run around and not in a car sense .

Its not fit for purpose and you want your money back sounds like a right heap of crap.

Go in there on a busy saturday and create a BIG fuss.

If it'd been me the fecking place would have been burnt down by now!

They would argue a wear and tear fault is down to negligence. Like leaving a bald tyre until it blows and claiming for the accident. It’ll go in circles between the dealer, warranty company and insurance.

Tarqs. I know you’re example is an analogy, but a garage shouldn’t be selling cars with a bald tyres, fair enough if 6 months down the line you’ve worn the tread off them, but you wouldn't reasonably expect the tyres to become so worn as to be dangerous after 2 weeks. The same applies to any other wearable part of the vehicle.

Full refund for faulty car. If this problem this quick else would there be. If no refund trading standards and small claims. Stop playing around with these cowboys.

I understand that. However, if you are reasonably unable to say something is worn, you aren’t expected to replace it. It would mean selling any used vehicle would become economically unviable. It’s the law and the sale of goods act. Which ordinarily works well to protect vendors and consumers alike, however this incident is unfortunate and slips through the cracks.

You do have an insurable interest in the car. Its not only owners who have insurable interest. The only way that you wouldn't have an insurable interest is if someone else had insured it. This may be what confused the insurer.

Car dealerships always try to pretend they know the law better than customers, solicitors, judges, etc.. They always bluff and bluster about parts wearing out and wrongful use on the customer's part. Courts are very adept at seeing through this. You would of course get a third party expert to tell you first whether it was your fault or not. But your right to reject a faulty item also depends on whether you relied on the expertise of the garage when purchasing the car (seems likely) and how much you paid for it and for £7800 for a 9 year old car, you would not expect it to develop severe engine faults within 2 weeks. You would be under a duty to mitigate such loss e.g. by not continuing to drive it avoidably and furthering the damage but that does not alleviate the dealership's liability if the initial cause was a lack of fitness for purpose. Your duty to mitigate doesn't include a duty to be an expert in engine damage.

I once claimed against a large car dealership and received a silly letter back from a salesman informing me that there was a "special branch of law called motor trade law". I was so irritated that I sued them and won. Small claim. They even wasted more money on solicitor's letters and then trying to settle in part but I knew they'd settle in full before they let it go to court, which they did.

I think ultimately your best option would be to reject the car and get a full refund and not to deal with any of this nonsense if you can possibly do so!

Tarqs. Consumer law does not work like that. You would reasonably expect a garage to perform a through check on a vehicle to check it was roadworthy, before sale. Not just kick the tyres and perform a visual inspection to see if it was alright. The car sales people will factor this into their pricing. Op is entitled to full refund, or repair at their expense.