Sale of goods act, and TVR engineering.
Discussion
Reasearching my own engine problems, I am investigating a warranty company's insurance scheme, under The sale of goods act.
Those TVR owners that have had to pay out for expensive repairs might like to read this, taken from the Sale of Good Act.
"If faulty goods are involved and the purchase was a reasonably short time ago you should offer a refund. Although they won't usually do so, the customer may claim compensation from you - either immediately following the sale or up to six years afterwards. If they do so and it's a reasonable claim, you can either offer to repair or replace the goods, or to provide an appropriate sum in redress".
I did write to TVR yesterday for a response to what mileage they accept would expect to be "end of life", from a Speed six.
SIX YEARS AFTER
>> Edited by justinbaker on Wednesday 12th October 13:34
Those TVR owners that have had to pay out for expensive repairs might like to read this, taken from the Sale of Good Act.
"If faulty goods are involved and the purchase was a reasonably short time ago you should offer a refund. Although they won't usually do so, the customer may claim compensation from you - either immediately following the sale or up to six years afterwards. If they do so and it's a reasonable claim, you can either offer to repair or replace the goods, or to provide an appropriate sum in redress".
I did write to TVR yesterday for a response to what mileage they accept would expect to be "end of life", from a Speed six.
SIX YEARS AFTER
>> Edited by justinbaker on Wednesday 12th October 13:34
Did you buy your TVR from TVR engineering then?
If not any claim you may or may not have is against the dealer from whom you purcased the car. If you purchased it privately you have no claim against anyone.
(As I understand the law).
>> Edited by unrepentant on Wednesday 12th October 13:49
If not any claim you may or may not have is against the dealer from whom you purcased the car. If you purchased it privately you have no claim against anyone.
(As I understand the law).
>> Edited by unrepentant on Wednesday 12th October 13:49
bjwoods said:
Legally the issue IS with the dealer (ie as it is from buying a washing machine from comet)
With CARS though the dealer USUALLY sorts it out with the manufacturer. And ultimatly ie dealer no longer exists, manufacturer sorts things out to save embarrasment/negative publicity.
B
Agreed. The Law with regard to the Sale of Goods Act only applied where a contract exists. For example, the dealer has entered into a contract with you to supply a car which does not contravene the act. The contract you have is solely with the dealer. Any action under the act, including a legal case or compensation would be between yourself and the dealer. The normal practice would be then for the dealer to arrange (or sue!) the manufacturer for compensation, although they would have a supply contract which would be exempt from the SofG Act as they are not the end user of the product.
The other ramification is that if you bought the car second hand, your contract is with the person you bought the car from. If it is a private sale, this is not covered by the SofG Act, however it is an offence if the car was misrepresented.
In that situation, since you have never had a contract with TVR, then the SofG Act could never be applied.
An interesting situation would be is if you bought a car through private sale, and had problems with the car, and used the previous owner to apply for compensation under the Act. I am not actually sure what would happen in this case.
There are a number of posts a few years ago (look up JSG) of people who have enquired about a legal route. The Sale of Goods Act states that the product should be free of fault (or should be repaired or replaced) for a *reasonable* amount of time. It is also implied that the cost/quality of the goods has a bearing on this. For example, a reasonable amount of time for a Rolex to be free of faults is greater than a cheap plastic watch.
The six year limit is there for inherent or design faults or damages claims from use of the product, although from memory I think that there are some exceptions where there is no time limit.
I agree that with the standard engine rebuild faults, someone with one of the best cases, such as an 18 month or 2 year old engine with 10,000 miles it would be very difficult to respond to the fact that it should last longer!
There has been a lot mentioned about a huge legal battle which may ensue over technical details of the engine etc which would produce a long and costly case. It is my reckoning that if someone were to follow such a case, they would have best chance if purchased through a dealer. They should write to the MD of the dealer explaining the faults, and how it contravenes the Act and wait for a response. It may be the case that a forthright way forward might produce a good result. After that you could offer a time limit for resolution to stop legal action. Your next case would be to claim through the court. You could claim for up to £5000 with a reasonably simple procedure online, where the defendant has the option of either paying in full, arraging an out of court settlement, or going to court. If they do not respond, from that point you win the case by default.
In court, personally I do not think it would be difficult to show the 'reasonable' time for the engine to be free of defects in such a case. It would be slightly more difficult to prove the inherent fault hypothesis with someone like JSGs survey or the help from other witnesses with the same problem (members from here?).
To be honest I think that the %age of these cases which reach court is less than 5%. The cost of the defendant to pay a solicitor to investigate and represent the case at your local court, often makes it more financially viable to give in rather than fight, especially if they may not win, as all these costs would be added to you compensation.
If anyone is in that situation, for the sake of the filing fee which is about £150 off the top of my head for £5000 claims, it may be worth the risk that you may get somewhere into enticing some 'goodwill' repairs. I would like to know the outcome if anyone goes down that route as it has been discussed a number of times but no-one as yet has taken the plunge!
rfisher said:
Would also help if a PH solicitor offered his/her services for minimal or no fee.
Good point. Although that would certainly help with a big scale case, I have found the claims procedure for up to £5000 very 'user friendly'. At this level the court is there to sort things in a common sense way. The Sale of Goods Act is there to protect the consumer, and the court is there to add bite to the claim. In these type of cases I am in the firm belief that the 'small fish' is definately on a level playing field (or on a winning one...) against the 'big fish'. At small claims level, the defendant cannot claim expenses so even if you lost you would not be left with the other sides legal bill.
There is also the factor that the court is sat by Magistrates, who are ordinary people, and consumers like us, and usually have no legal training. They are guided by the clerk of the court as to the letter of the law, but it is theor decidion on how it is applied. This is usually with common sense. In this kind of situation, the simplicity of the case will be to your benefit, as it would be very difficult to argue against. TVR (or the dealer on their behalf) would be left with a horrible situation of either admitting that the claimants problems are a 'one off' and thus admitting that the parts/built is not up to usual standard, or admitting the common 'they are all like that sir' which may be even more damning!
alans said:
There is also the factor that the court is sat by Magistrates, who are ordinary people, and consumers like us,
I have been through the small claims court (on line) IIRC the case is considered by a Judge. Agree with all the other points though.
Alan
I sued a second-hand car dealer in Small Claims a few years ago (when the fee was £35 and the maximum claim was £1K). The case was heard by a Judge in 'chambers' (actually a meeting room at Reading Crown Court) sitting 'in mufti' (plain clothes). The whole thing was completly painless and I'd do it again like a shot. Everyone was very helpful. The only advice I'd give to anyone thinking of doing it is that the Judge will not take your word for anything; they want to see documentary evidence (in my case, the E&M advert stating the car had a service history and two letters from Porsche dealers saying that without it the car was worth £x less.)
If one were going to do this for a S6 engine, one would need documentary evidence that an engine should last more than x,000 miles.
zumbruk said:
If one were going to do this for a S6 engine, one would need documentary evidence that an engine should last more than x,000 miles.
Hmm, I wonder if the value of the car and the common experience of cars in general would give a reasonable understanding. For example you would have a very good case at 5000 miles, whereas at 30,000 miles you would need to refer to a lot more evidence.
A thought I had was the original press and sales blurb for the Tuscan was it was designed to be an 'everyday car'. That being said, if you do an average of 12,000 miles a year in your everyday car, you would expect the engine to last a bit more than a year? For example, if the engine has gone after 8000 miles, it would have lasted at average use as an everyday car for 2/3 of a year or 240 days!!
justinp1 said:
A thought I had was the original press and sales blurb for the Tuscan was it was designed to be an 'everyday car'. That being said, if you do an average of 12,000 miles a year in your everyday car, you would expect the engine to last a bit more than a year? For example, if the engine has gone after 8000 miles, it would have lasted at average use as an everyday car for 2/3 of a year or 240 days!!
But....the manual also contains detailed break-in / warmup instructions does it not?
How can anyone prove that their engine has been treated accordingly? Data logging every second of the engines' life???
Engine treatment is not something that can be easily proven, ergo that's a BIG get-out for TVR, warranty companies, et al!!
Someone wise said:
He who has the gold, makes the rules....
Don't get me wrong, I wish Justin and everyone that's ever had a SP6 let go the best of luck (god knows I'll probably be next...
), but the phrase 'Hiding to Nothing' keeps echoing inside my head, and my heart sinks a little bit lower when I think what TVR could have done with this sorry situation 
nelly1 said:
justinp1 said:
A thought I had was the original press and sales blurb for the Tuscan was it was designed to be an 'everyday car'. That being said, if you do an average of 12,000 miles a year in your everyday car, you would expect the engine to last a bit more than a year? For example, if the engine has gone after 8000 miles, it would have lasted at average use as an everyday car for 2/3 of a year or 240 days!!
But....the manual also contains detailed break-in / warmup instructions does it not?
How can anyone prove that their engine has been treated accordingly? Data logging every second of the engines' life???
Engine treatment is not something that can be easily proven, ergo that's a BIG get-out for TVR, warranty companies, et al!!
Someone wise said:
He who has the gold, makes the rules....
Don't get me wrong, I wish Justin and everyone that's ever had a SP6 let go the best of luck (god knows I'll probably be next...
I think the propogation of the 'Hiding to Nothing' ideology has been the the possible reason why a legal case has not yet been bought. Who knows the number of times TVR have settled 'out of court' on the contractual basis that the work is done and the owner is not allowed to advertise the fact?
Although I am yet to hear a case that has been won with regard to the SP6, this may be for the above reason. More importantly I have never seen one which TVR have won!
With regard to the warming up procedure, in the evidence you give you will be able to make reference to this, for example 'My car has been warmed up and treated exactly how the manual says (when I eventually got sent it
but another thread...) and has been always serviced by TVR dealers as per the service schedule'. If TVR wanted to put forward that the engine had failed due to not being run in properly, the onus of proof would be on them to prove it, otherwise it would simply not rub.
Imagine a hypothetical situation that I mentioned in a previous post that you would expect a Rolex to last a good amount of time without failure. Rolex's comeback to why the watch has failed is 'We know that our watch is a perfectly good design, so if it has been broken it must have been misused or dropped on the floor.'
Rolex would obviously have no evidence to support either of the accusations.
A claimants story would have further weight if their story was supported by other PH members who have had the same problems. Although as I said before, such a case would be best dealt with in a simple way as possible to not allow the defendant to 'muddy the waters' whilst a simple case is tried.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 13th October 18:43
justinp1 said:
If TVR wanted to put forward that the engine had failed due to not being run in properly, the onus of proof would be on them to prove it, otherwise it would simply not rub.
Nice idea, but I was under the impression the main reason they didn't pay out for engine claims was the old chestnut of 'Customer Abuse' !!
nelly1 said:
justinp1 said:
If TVR wanted to put forward that the engine had failed due to not being run in properly, the onus of proof would be on them to prove it, otherwise it would simply not rub.
Nice idea, but I was under the impression the main reason they didn't pay out for engine claims was the old chestnut of 'Customer Abuse' !!
Yes, that is what they told the customers, just before they took £5000 from hundreds of them, whilst killing two birds with one stone by not admitting there was a problem in the first place and thus propogating the same idea you have quite eloquently repeated as common knowledge.
See a motive somewhere?
This is where the use of a Court would be beneficial. A lot of businesses propogate their own rules which end up being accepted by the 'let down' customer to protect revenue. Unfortunately these get accepted as 'the way it is'.
Have you ever heard in a shop, 'we can only replace or give a refund up to 14 days after purchase', or 'we dont do returns, you will have to speak to the manufacturer directly?' Both of these contravene the SofG Act, but people accept that the 'big company' must be doing the right thing.
I feel for each person who has been on the wrong end of a rebuild. It is much worse if people have had to fork out £5000 or more, some people more than once. It is my personal opinion from my degree studies of Business Law that a number of people have good cases for compensation. Whether they have the gumption to go the legal route is another thing, when all they want is their car back soon. It has been previously discussed before of a long court case of class action 'SP6 Owners V TVR' which would have a huge legal bill, and a lot for TVR to lose, and thus would have to defend to the end.
I am suggesting that a case using small claims procedure, would have a good chance of winning. Another point is that the system is simple, and your total outlay is less than £200 to get it heard. Being a gambler or statistician, if you are comparing this to a £5000 rebuild it would stand that if you have a better chance than 5000/200 (25 to one) it is worth a wager. I would guess that the chance of winning is much higher than that, and if I were to be in that unfortunate situation in the future would be taking that route, and would help others do the same.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 13th October 21:51
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 13th October 21:59
justinp1 said:
Agreed. The Law with regard to the Sale of Goods Act only applied where a contract exists. For example, the dealer has entered into a contract with you to supply a car which does not contravene the act. The contract you have is solely with the dealer. Any action under the act, including a legal case or compensation would be between yourself and the dealer. The normal practice would be then for the dealer to arrange (or sue!) the manufacturer for compensation, although they would have a supply contract which would be exempt from the SofG Act as they are not the end user of the product.
The other ramification is that if you bought the car second hand, your contract is with the person you bought the car from. If it is a private sale, this is not covered by the SofG Act, however it is an offence if the car was misrepresented.
In that situation, since you have never had a contract with TVR, then the SofG Act could never be applied.
Surely this relates to the "sale contract", whereas does not the SofG Act also demand of the (UK) manufacturer to produce a product of "satisfactory quality"? TVR hiding behind a dealer as the party with whom the end customer has the contract is mischievous in the extreme. If TVR has produced a car which does not meet the (albeit rather vague) standard of satisfactory quality they must surely be accountable irrespective of who the car was purchased from - or is the law really that much of an ass? Moreover, unless I've got this wrong, anyone buying a car from a dealer that goes pop (seemingly a frequent occurence), TVR could reject any claims it likes under the 3 year warranty leaving the customer without legal recourse.
Satisfactory quality (or "fit for purpose" as it was once known) is undoubtedly the thorny issue, but I reckon the driver handbook makes TVR's claims of quality manufacture and engineering very clear.
justinp1 said:
Have you ever heard in a shop, 'we can only replace or give a refund up to 14 days after purchase', or 'we dont do returns, you will have to speak to the manufacturer directly?' Both of these contravene the SofG Act, but people accept that the 'big company' must be doing the right thing.
I am suggesting that a case using small claims procedure, would have a good chance of winning. Another point is that the system is simple, and your total outlay is less than £200 to get it heard. Being a gambler or statistician, if you are comparing this to a £5000 rebuild it would stand that if you have a better chance than 5000/200 (25 to one) it is worth a wager. I would guess that the chance of winning is much higher than that, and if I were to be in that unfortunate situation in the future would be taking that route, and would help others do the same.
I don't think any retailer would dare do that these days. The "14 days" thing is usually for return of non faulty goods.
The small claims court has a limit. I'm not sure but I seem to recall its £5k (I may be wrong). But you can only sue the person / company from whom you purchased the goods from.
I would also suggest that if you are attempting to get a "goodwill" type issue setttled direct with the manufacturer, quoting the sale of goods act at them is likely to get you off on the wrong foot.
unrepentant said:
I don't think any retailer would dare do that these days. The "14 days" thing is usually for return of non faulty goods.
I actually read the '14 Days' whilst waiting in the queue of a shop, waiting to pay. It was included in a little, small print type 'Terms and Conditions of Sale' board displayed at the till. Also, when I worked for PC World back when I was a student it was trained that we would reject refunds of items over 14 days old, and tell the customer they had to be repaired. Although this was 1997 at the time, as far as I am aware it is pretty much common practice to 'inform' customers of company policy as 'law' whereas the reality of the Act is somewhat unknown.
unrepentant said:
The small claims court has a limit. I'm not sure but I seem to recall its £5k (I may be wrong). But you can only sue the person / company from whom you purchased the goods from.
You are correct, £5000 is the limit. However, this should cover most rebuild work. You are also correct, you can only take action quoting the Act with someone you have had a contract of sale with. As I said at the top of the thread, no-one could sue TVR directly, as they never had a contract of sale with them. It would be the dealer who would be the defendant.
unrepentant said:
I would also suggest that if you are attempting to get a "goodwill" type issue setttled direct with the manufacturer, quoting the sale of goods act at them is likely to get you off on the wrong foot.
Too right! As said before, quoting the Act in this case may prove a point, but would have no legal basis, as you did not buy the car from them. As far as I am aware however the idea of a goodwill rebuild is a long-gone concept and has infact spawned the necessity of this thread...
Unrepentant, with your experience in getting good results with the factory with other matters, from your experience what would be the best way forward with regard to 'goodwill' work? What would you think would be the likely outcome?
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 14th October 00:45
unrepentant said:
I don't think any retailer would dare do that these days. The "14 days" thing is usually for return of non faulty goods.
justinp1 said:
I actually read the '14 Days' whilst waiting in the queue of a shop, waiting to pay. It was included in a little, small print type 'Terms and Conditions of Sale' board displayed at the till.
I would suggest you have misunderstood it or they are extremely stupid. No big retailer would dare do it. It is not unusual for the big boys (I've been a big boy in the past
) to have a 14 or 30 day "no quibble" policy. i.e. if you change your mind you can bring it back within 14 days etc.. Where goods are faulty that goes to statuatory rights and every retailer understands that, even PC World. Sure they may try to go for a repair but if the punter sticks to his guns they will have back down. (I bought a pc from M**H last year and made them replace it even though it was 5 months old when it crashed for the second time).
justinp1 said:
Unrepentant, with your experience in getting good results with the factory with other matters, from your experience what would be the best way forward with regard to 'goodwill' work? What would you think would be the likely outcome?
I've never had a failure so I can't really comment (as I'm frequently told
). What I do know is that the attitude on the pod issue (from NS himself I was told) was "this is a problem - let's sort it out". Which they did. I don't know the details of Justin's situation but I assume that he is not the first owner and his car is 5 years old. I would expect him to be treated courteously but in that situation you really are relying totally on goodwill. And posting on here may not have helped his cause...................
To flip the coin and look at it from their perspective, I have personally seen cars ragged from cold. I have also heard stories from others in a similar vein. I was told by my dealer that they have had cars in for servicing where the service bonnet is rusted in place and has had to be forced open. These engines do need looking after and not everyone looks after them.
edited because too many Justin's has confused me
>> Edited by unrepentant on Friday 14th October 09:30
unrepentant said:
unrepentant said:
I don't think any retailer would dare do that these days. The "14 days" thing is usually for return of non faulty goods.
justinp1 said:
I actually read the '14 Days' whilst waiting in the queue of a shop, waiting to pay. It was included in a little, small print type 'Terms and Conditions of Sale' board displayed at the till.
I would suggest you have misunderstood it or they are extremely stupid. No big retailer would dare do it. It is not unusual for the big boys (I've been a big boy in the past
Where goods are faulty that goes to statuatory rights and every retailer understands that, even PC World. Sure they may try to go for a repair but if the punter sticks to his guns they will have back down. (I bought a pc from M**H last year and made them replace it even though it was 5 months old when it crashed for the second time).
Without wanting to be smug, the Sale of Goods Act and its ramifications was part of my degree course. Where I saw the 'Terms and Conditions' board at the till, it was actually in a clothes shop, and I did actually ask them about it, where I got the response 'You will have to talk to the manager about that', so got no further as that was the limit of my 'busybodyness'!
With regard to PC World, when I worked there I am certainly not mistaken about what the company line was. The British are a race who dont like to complain and I think they capitalise on this in writing their returns policy. If company policy was to be broken (even to satisfy statutory rights) the lowly person at the desk was not even autorised to do it, the Duty Manager was the only person allowed to over-ride the company policy to cover the SofG Act!
It was only when I got to my degree when I answered a question in a seminar, I found that what I was 'taught' at PC World, was not entirely with the Act! Even I *assumed* it must be right!
I must point out that if you complain enough PC World will satisfy your rights, and even if this is up to a year, if you complain in a forthright way they will look to satisfy you as a customer. This is probably what happened in your case. They know however, that people like you and me are in the 10% that have a grasp of the law and doesnt mind getting the service they have paid for. The 90% put up and shut up, or when they are told of 'company policy' they have no reason to think that they may have further rights. This is why many retailers have on their Terms and Conditions of Sale (which must be displayed somewhere in the store) that their company policy 'Does not affect your Statutory Rights'. This makes them exempt from a legal comeback whilst quietly making people think that they have to do the cheapest way out for the retailer involved.
If anyone is interested, have a look at their Terms and Conditions of Sale next time you are in a shop, it will be *somewhere* usually at a till, and will probably have a lot of what I have said included!
unrepentant said:
To flip the coin and look at it from their perspective, I have personally seen cars ragged from cold. I have also heard stories from others in a similar vein. I was told by my dealer that they have had cars in for servicing where the service bonnet is rusted in place and has had to be forced open. These engines do need looking after and not everyone looks after them.
edited because too many Justin's has confused me
>> Edited by unrepentant on Friday 14th October 09:30
Completely agreed! I have heard the same stories. I have also heard anecdotal evidence of posters on these forums of the type of stuff like 'Had a spat with a Lambo yesterday, loved the sound of third gear just before the rev limiter cut in!... oops, that just ruined the careful running in, ooerrr!'
That to me is just stupid, and they deserve any problems they may have in the future. However is must be said that you cannot fail to be sympathetic for someone like Gudgeon on a similar thread '10,000 miles...' and feel sorry for someone who has run in their engine perfectly and followed the warming up procedure and servicing exactly and carefully, and at less than 10k and 18 months is looking at a £5k bill?
Given the number of low mileage cars around I have to wonder how you could spend many tens of thousands of pounds on a new high performance car and then spend virtually your entire ownership running it in. It must take a phenomenal amount of will power, and I wonder how many people actually manage to do it?
I'm sure that a lot of the people we hear about with engine problems really did treat the engine properly throughout its entire life. But I'm sure there are people who are rather less carefull, and I know that there are some people who mistreat their engines something rotten.
I'm sure that a lot of the people we hear about with engine problems really did treat the engine properly throughout its entire life. But I'm sure there are people who are rather less carefull, and I know that there are some people who mistreat their engines something rotten.
Gassing Station | Speed Six Engine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff