Warranty Wise - Worth it?

[MACK]

The passage was from the AA website and backs up what I said before. If you buy a car from a dealer then you are covered.

I also agree with Al that most warranty companies will try and get out of any claim.

I think your being extremely naive here. The onus is on the garage to prove the fault wasn't there a the point of sale, which is quite easy if you didn't bring the car back till you had had it for two months. Any right minded individual takes a vehicle back within a few days or a week of a fault presenting itself. If a fault doesn't present for two months for example it wasn't there at the point of sale, or at least thats what any dealer would easily argue. If you honestly think your going to take a car back to a dealer after months and months and say "fix it, you have to legally" your in for a nasty shock!

It isn't about being naive. It is the law and if the garage doesn't fix or won't fix then is liable to the consequences of the law. This would then end up in court. The reason most dealers supply a third party warrantee is to exempt them from this possibility.

Yes and if the warranty wont pay its back on the dealer.

In court (if it went there) the dealer will easily claim if the fault was present at the point of sale you would have been back within the first few weeks of owning a vehicle. No one waits 2,3,4 or 5 months to take a vehicle back with a fault and if you claim that's because it didn't show up till you had owned the vehicle for months then their obviously response will be "wasn't faulty when we sold it then was it!"

If you try to claim it was there all along I just did not choose to bring it back till now (months later) that will be viewed very dubiously by any magistrate and could also be claimed to be irresponsible/unreasonable behaviour as you could have made matters worse with a vehicle driving it around for months with a known fault, depending on the nature of the fault.

I have personally read a lot of the literature various legal bodies etc have put out to the trade on this and what in reality/practice this actually means to them. Research it yourself, some of its publicly available, some not.

If you think its simply a matter of walking in a garage and going "its the law" and they will simply rollover I'm sorry but you are being niave on this. You need to think how this work in reality and that's what most law firms etc have been spouting to the trade.

The big risk for dealers under the new legislation is the first 30 days not months 2-6. In the first 30 days in theory you could try to claim your money back on a car because a simple to replace bulb has failed. However in practice this is unreasonable and if you did take it to court magistrates etc would agree. However if the engine had failed its a whole different matter.

 

[AlfaScozzesi]

I think your being extremely naive here. The onus is on the garage to prove the fault wasn't there a the point of sale, which is quite easy if you didn't bring the car back till you had had it for two months. Any right minded individual takes a vehicle back within a few days or a week of a fault presenting itself. If a fault doesn't present for two months for example it wasn't there at the point of sale, or at least thats what any dealer would easily argue. If you honestly think your going to take a car back to a dealer after months and months and say "fix it, you have to legally" your in for a nasty shock!

It isn't about being naive. It is the law and if the garage doesn't fix or won't fix then is liable to the consequences of the law. This would then end up in court. The reason most dealers supply a third party warrantee is to exempt them from this possibility.

Yes and if the warranty wont pay its back on the dealer.

In court (if it went there) the dealer will easily claim if the fault was present at the point of sale you would have been back within the first few weeks of owning a vehicle. No one waits 2,3,4 or 5 months to take a vehicle back with a fault and if you claim that's because it didn't show up till you had owned the vehicle for months then their obviously response will be "wasn't faulty when we sold it then was it!"

If you try to claim it was there all along I just did not choose to bring it back till now (months later) that will be viewed very dubiously by any magistrate and could also be claimed to be irresponsible/unreasonable behaviour as you could have made matters worse with a vehicle driving it around for months with a known fault, depending on the nature of the fault.

I have personally read a lot of the literature various legal bodies etc have put out to the trade on this and what in reality/practice this actually means to them. Research it yourself, some of its publicly available, some not.

If you think its simply a matter of walking in a garage and going "its the law" and they will simply rollover I'm sorry but you are being niave on this. You need to think how this work in reality and that's what most law firms etc have been spouting to the trade.

The big risk for dealers under the new legislation is the first 30 days not months 2-6. In the first 30 days in theory you could try to claim your money back on a car because a simple to replace bulb has failed. However in practice this is unreasonable and if you did take it to court magistrates etc would agree. However if the engine had failed its a whole different matter.

I understand your point but the six month rule is there for serious problems such as engine failure in your example which has evolved over the six month period due to an undisclosed problem at the time of sale. Not being expert enough to diagnose a problem in the early stages does not make a buyer culpable.

I am sure a garage would not rollover but it is up to them to prove the problem was not there not the other way around.

As we all know the magistrates or courts are there to uphold the law as it stands and have nothing to do with common sense! In this case as in many others the consumer has many rights, much more than the vendor.

 

[Scooba_Steve]

It would be the County Court not a Magistrates.

While it could be argued that if a fault was present at sale then a number of months pass and a claim is made that is by no means proof it wasn't there initially.

 

[MACK]

It would be the County Court not a Magistrates.

While it could be argued that if a fault was present at sale then a number of months pass and a claim is made that is by no means proof it wasn't there initially.

Depends on the fault really. If it's a fault that flags a warning light for example or something that would otherwise case a breakdown etc it would be unrealistic for someone to wait months before informing or chasing the garage. Same with a lot of other faults such as a failed central locking motor or an electric window. No one in their right mind waits months to bring these sorts of things to the attention of a garage.

Even an intermittent fault you would ask the garage to look at quick smart. You would really need letters/emails to back up you reported the fault very early on. If you waited months to report something the obvious implication is you were satisfied with the vehicle (it was working properly) till that point. Civil courts work on the balance of probability and aren't motor techs so they would assume that as you didn't pipe up for months clearly all was well.

 

[Scooba_Steve]

That's a lot of "what if's" hence why it would depend on the circumstances.

You're right in that it's not an automatic win for the customer, Alfa is right in that the burden of proof is reversed for the first 6 months under the Sale of Goods Act. The time limit for a claim is actually 6 years but after 6 months it is the claimant that must prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

While you are correct that the standard of proof being balance of probabilities they certainly wouldn't assume anything and if not versed on the more technical aspects would require an expert's statement.