[CL500]

Help please,

Ok, i purchased a car (Mercedes CL500) at the end of January, it came with a independent 6 month warranty, however the ABC Pump (active body control) is very noisy, Does the garage still have a period where they are legaly bound to replace the pump or is this a myth?

I thought that they had to give their own 3 month warranty.

thanks
Paul

[davesdad]

warranty`s are not worth the paper they are writen on, expect you will be told "sorry fair wear and tear,not covered"

[MrDanno]

The dealer who sold it to you is responsible for the repair. The 3rd party warranty is nothing to do with it. Sounds like an expensive repair!

[CL500]

Looks to be about £1200 for the pump alone then a days labour !

[Snowball]

You don't say how old the car is, or what mileage it has done. A dealer isn't obliged to pay for what can reasonably be deemed 'fair wear and tear' on a used car, although many dealers have been known to offer part-cost as a goodwill gesture.

How was an independent warranty set up? Was this in any way in conjunction with the dealer, or completely off your own bat?
All warranties are not worthless, and you need to study the T&C to establish what the warranty company's liabilities entail. They are legally bound to cover any repairs specified in the warranty, so you must carefully go through the small print to check what is included and what is excluded.

If it is a company similar to Direct Line, they probably has a clause where you pay an initial part of the cost. Typically £50, I think. Assuming that you are covered by the warranty, the dealer might agree to stump up that initial figure.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

A dealer isn't obliged to pay for what can reasonably be deemed 'fair wear and tear' on a used car, although many dealers have been known to offer part-cost as a goodwill gesture.

The dealer is obliged to pay for any serious faults which arise within a reasonable time of the sale. A faulty ABC pump cannot be defined under 'fair wear and tear'.

Too much is hidden under the 'fair wear and tear' umbrella, It is what is says and cannot be used by traders to squirm out of their obligations.

[CL500]

The car is a 2001 with 80,000 on the clock, the pump was changed by the previous owner,(previous owner happens to live at the same place as the vehicle was purchased "THE GARAGE") looking at the condition of the pump fairly recently, as well as 2 shocks and the distribution block, the problem is the pump is very noisy (indicative of impending failure) and when the engine is stopped there is a prolonged release of pressure, it went back last week and all they changed was the pully and bearing but this has not cured the problem, would i have to wait until the pump fails completely and possibly causing other problems, The pump is a tandem pump which supplies the suspension and steering, if my partner and 17 month old son were in the car if the power steering failed i would not be a happy bunny.

[Snowball]

As it is a safety-critical component, any suggestion that the garage sold it with a known fault should, in my opinion, render them liable for the fault. Although the mileage is low for a 10-year-old car, I am not convinced that Trading Standards would automaticaaly support the buyer. What dealings I have had with them gives me the impression that they err on the side of "reasonable caution". If the previous owner did his own pump change (?), and if the garage claimed there was no problem at time of sale, i would not rule out Trading Standards taking a 'fair wear and tear' stance.

Many years ago, I had a garage fit a new timing belt on my ford Transit campervan. Failure to tighten the front bolt of the crankshaft resulted in allowing the oil pump to 'freewheel' on the shaft, and cause major damage. The garage claimed they had fitted the timing belt without removing this bolt. In actual fact, to do that, they would have had to bend the belt across its width to get it around a rightangle gap of about 3mm. No way could this have been done, but Ford would not rule out the possibility. That was enough for me to be left with the cost the repairs.
Sorry about the pessimism.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

As it is a safety-critical component, any suggestion that the garage sold it with a known fault should, in my opinion, render them liable for the fault. Although the mileage is low for a 10-year-old car, I am not convinced that Trading Standards would automaticaaly support the buyer. What dealings I have had with them gives me the impression that they err on the side of "reasonable caution".

The office of fair trading set up new guidelines and rules last year. In the rules it states "Faults with the vehicle emerge in the first 6 months after purchase - presumed to have been present at the time of sale.......... Burden of proof is with the dealer to prove the fault was not present at the time of sale. "

Alot of dealers try to sell people a third party warranty and hope they can get away with pointing to the warranty company when the faults of not covered by them, Quite simply they cannot do this. They are not able to wriggle out of the sale of goods act.

[MrDanno]

Originally Posted by Snowball

Many years ago, I had a garage fit a new timing belt on my ford Transit campervan. Failure to tighten the front bolt of the crankshaft resulted in allowing the oil pump to 'freewheel' on the shaft, and cause major damage. The garage claimed they had fitted the timing belt without removing this bolt. In actual fact, to do that, they would have had to bend the belt across its width to get it around a rightangle gap of about 3mm. No way could this have been done, but Ford would not rule out the possibility. That was enough for me to be left with the cost the repairs.

If you had got an independent engineer to inspect it and say it was impossible to change the belt without removing the crank bolt then you could have reinforced your claim against them.

Anyway bending a belt the way they described is a 'NO-NO' when it comes to timing belts replacement, So even if they had managed to do it that way they would be guilty of incorrectly fitting and possibly damaging the belt.
Not to mention, Should they have fitted it using the correct procedure then the 'loose crank bolt' would have then be tightened to the correct torque by them during the replacement.

[CL500]

They have been naughty in the past as they sold the car with a known central locking fault which was done under the third party warranty, But will persue this claim as it has happened so soon after purchase.

Thanks for ALL the advice...