Burnt out clutch 31 days after purchase from dealer

[Nicola92]

Dear all,

 

 

31 days ago I purchased a Mini One Convertible with just 39,000 miles on the clock.

 

 

Today (31 days after purchase, typically just outside the 30 day rejection window) the clutch has started slipping badly.

 

 

I phoned the dealer who refused to accept any liability. I put pressure on them and they offered me £100 towards the cost of repairs (c. £400).

 

 

I told them under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 the car was not of satisfactory quality and that, as this fault has developed inside 6 months, the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.

 

 

I told them I would not hesitate to take them to a small claims court to recover my costs should I need to get this repaired privately.

 

 

They then offered to repair the clutch themselves. The problem is the car is not drivable ( And I am worried they would try and bodge a repair) and their garage is 200 miles away from me. My interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act is that they are liable to come and collect the car or liable for the expenses of having it taken to their garage if they want to repair it themselves..

 

 

Is this true? If so I will insist on having the car repaired locally (unless they come and collect it), and if they do not pay the very reasonable bill I have been quoted I will take them to court.

 

 

Please can someone kindly clarify if I am able to insist they collect the faulty car or fit the bill for have it taken back to their garage?

 

 

Thanks so much in advance,

 

 

Nicola

Edited October 23, 2016 by Nicola92

[mch1991]

The Sales of Goods Act 1979 is no longer relevant and was replaced in late 2015.

 

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 is the legislation you're after.

 

My understanding of the law, is that 1 - 30 days after collection/delivery of the vehicle, you can reject for any mechanical fault.

 

30 days - 6 months, the onus is on the dealership to prove that the fault was not present at the time of purchase, obviously for a clutch to fail within 31 days shows a mechanical fault must of been in existence.

 

The dealership must repair the vehicle within a reasonable time scale or pay for any repair. They get one chance to repair the car, so should the fault reappear or another fault occur, you can reject the car for a partial refund (the purchase price minus a little for "fair use").

 

Clearly the car is not fit for purpose. I'm sure others will be along with some more information on what to do next.

[king12345]

Clutch burnt at 39k miles means only 2 things:

1. Faulty clutch

2. Someone has the habit of driving with left foot resting on clutch pedal

 

Option 2 is what the dealer will try to claim.

Difficult to prove one way or another

[Nicola92]

The consumer rights act though mentioned by mch1991 above (thanks) clearly states the burden of proof is on the dealer within the first 6 months.

 

 

Therefore they have to prove the clutch was not faulty when sold (as the default assumption is that it was within the first 6 months), which is virtually impossible without removing the gearbox before sale and checking the clutch wear.

 

 

The fact is the car is not of satisfactory quality and On the balance of probabilities a small claims court should quite easily conclude therefore that the dealer is at fault and the fault was there at purchase, surely?

 

 

I can't see them having a leg to stand on in this regard. The only question in my eyes is whether I have to fit the bill to return it to them to get it repaired, or whether this is their liability and I can insist on them recovering it or having it repaired locally..

 

 

Clutch burnt at 39k miles means only 2 things:

1. Faulty clutch

2. Someone has the habit of driving with left foot resting on clutch pedal

 

Option 2 is what the dealer will try to claim.

Difficult to prove one way or another

Edited October 23, 2016 by Nicola92

[Nicola92]

I've just got off the phone from a solicitor's.

 

 

They have re-iterated exactly what I have said above.

 

 

Under section 23 subsection 2b the dealer is required to replace the clutch and bear and costs of doing so including the collection of the un-driveable vehicle.

 

 

I have been advised to put this in writing to the dealer and give them one chance and once chance only to either come and collect the car and repair it, or agree to a local repair where I am.

 

 

If they fail to do either of the above I will simply commence legal proceedings and I cannot see them having a leg to stand on.

 

 

I suspect once I deliver an NIP on their doorstep they will cough up!

 

 

"23Right to repair or replacementE+W+S+N.I.

This section has no associated Explanatory Notes

(1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)).

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)."

[king12345]

Solicitors working on Sunday afternoon???

Are you sure???

 

Anyhow, I just pointed out that the dealer could use option 2 (driving with left foot on clutch pedal) as an excuse.

I wouldn't be so sure that cra applies equally to any part of a car.

In fact, any mechanic could submit a professional statement in favour of the dealer explaining that a clutch can be burnt within a couple of hundred miles if left foot is rested on clutch pedal while driving.

Then I'm not too sure the judge would completely disregard this possibility.

Food for thoughts...

[Nicola92]

Yes, I have spoken to a solicitor this afternoon believe it or not.

 

 

I don't seen how the dealer could use that as an excuse with any success. Yes a clutch can be burnt out in however long, but the fact is I drive sensibly and the law states that if a fault develops inside 6 months (doesn't matter if its a ware and tear item such as the clutch) then it is deemed by law that it was there when purchased unless the dealer can prove otherwise.

 

 

The fact that a clutch can be burnt out in however long is certainly not proof that the fault was not there when the car was first purchased, and anyhow a small claims court will make its decisions based on the balance of probabilities and lets be very honest here, on the balance of probabilities it is obvious that the clutch was on the way out when the car was first purchase a mere 4 weeks ago.

 

 

I have also read of many such successful claims for similar scenarios so doesn't seem like an issue at all.

[king12345]

Yes, I have spoken to a solicitor this afternoon believe it or not.

 

 

I don't seen how the dealer could use that as an excuse with any success. Yes a clutch can be burnt out in however long, but the fact is I drive sensibly and the law states that if a fault develops inside 6 months (doesn't matter if its a ware and tear item such as the clutch) then it is deemed by law that it was there when purchased unless the dealer can prove otherwise.

 

 

The fact that a clutch can be burnt out in however long is certainly not proof that the fault was not there when the car was first purchased, and anyhow a small claims court will make its decisions based on the balance of probabilities and lets be very honest here, on the balance of probabilities it is obvious that the clutch was on the way out when the car was first purchase a mere 4 weeks ago.

 

 

I have also read of many such successful claims for similar scenarios so doesn't seem like an issue at all.

 

Same application of cra is true for tyres that can be destroyed in one afternoon.

Not clear cut as you making it in my opinion.

A judge with a pinch of mechanical knowledge would not find it so easy to rule in your favour and you can't really prove that you drive sensibly (again, in my opinion).

Better wait for the cra gurus.

[j66]

If the clutch was burnt out at the time of sale, it would have been obvious. Clutches are a wear and tear item, like brake linings and tyres. It could be possible that the clutch had been unduly worn by the previous owner, but still serviceable at the point of sale and that your use of it has just pushed it over the edge. The car is used, so there will be wear to parts of it. I've seen a clutch totally burnt out after 7 miles on a 1500 mile car.

 

As for them having to pay transport costs, it was your choice to buy from that distance away, so I can't see them covering consequential losses.

 

If the clutch is burnt out, it could be down to wear or oil contamination, if it's wear the dealer can attribute it to the driver, if it's oil contamination, it's a fault which they should have to pay for.

[dx100uk]

go nail 'em Nicola92 under cra

 

 

no excuses at all, their issue..

[scaniaman]

Definitely not clear cut. I had an elderly customer who was deaf, and his clutches lasted between 3 weeks and 4 months depending on how many times the car was used. How can you prove to a court you drive well?

As for transport to dealers garage---get real. Just think of the implications if it were law that dealers had to retrieve broken cars nation wide.

I always advise people to deal with local family businesses for major purchased-----they won't s---t in their own nest.

[Hammy1962]

Who says its a burnt out clutch, has it been properly diagnosed by removing the gearbox and having a look at the clutch disc? If the clutch was working OK and now, suddenly, its not maybe the rear main oil seal has sprung a leak and contaminated the clutch disc, causing it to start to suddenly slip.

 

It needs the box removing and testing with a pair of eyes.

 

H

[Nicola92]

I think you are missing the point, Consumer Law reverses the burden of proof within the first six months of purchase and thus I won't need to prove anything (I don't ride the clutch by the way, and have never had a to replace a clutch in my last car which I owned 7 years and for over 100,000 miles), it is the garage that will need to prove in court that the clutch wasn't on its way out when sold and judgement will then be made on the balance of probability.

 

 

The act also makes it clear that all costs are bourne by the seller; this is clearly a good thing for society as a whole as it clamps down on dodgy dealers and makes sure they get punished for bodging a car before sale.

 

 

Definitely not clear cut. I had an elderly customer who was deaf, and his clutches lasted between 3 weeks and 4 months depending on how many times the car was used. How can you prove to a court you drive well?

As for transport to dealers garage---get real. Just think of the implications if it were law that dealers had to retrieve broken cars nation wide.

I always advise people to deal with local family businesses for major purchased-----they won't s---t in their own nest.

[Nicola92]

Biting point was very high at time of purchase which raised my own suspicions about the clutch, but because it was a car I wasn't used to I stupidly trusted the garage who said they had a checked it ( a lie as I have subsequently found out you have to remove the gearbox to do this) and that it was only half worn.

 

 

I feel completely gutted, gullable and tricked into buying this car when the specifically told me the clutch was only half worn and I stupidly believed them because I thought they were a trustworthy garage (had a good reputation) and knew more than me and were honest

 

 

I am sure the clutch is dead as it has started to slip and will only get worse. I don't want to drive it incase it damages the flywheel.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Nicola92

[king12345]

You don't like what you're hearing regarding not being a clear cut case.

If you already knew the answer to your question, why bother to ask and risk to have a different answer?

I hope you're right regarding this matter and recover your losses, good luck.

[Hammy1962]

It might still be half worn. But have oil on it from an oil leak which occurred after sale and therefore could not be foreseen. Be careful with your quest for punishment. It could cost you dearly.

[ericsbrother]

best bet is to get them to agree to have the vehicle inspected locally and you both abide by the findings of that garage. If problem said to be there when car purchased then it will be impossible for seller to wriggle out of paying for local repair. Split costs for inspection as whoever is wrong is going to pick up bigger bill so in the scheme of things a minor cost. If they dont agree to this then make sure you have either made the offer in writing and they reject the same way or record the phone calls.