Wear and tear - what's your view?

[Technote 0]

Discussion regarding wear and tear items.

Now, for me I would say that wear and tear items are those which can do just that, they are impacted upon by use and gradually lose functionality to one degree or another until they finally cease to function. So the obvious, brakes, tyres, clutch, gearbox.

But what of the less obvious items...the runner/handle that the seats move along...a cabriolet roof (read the previous thread as a lurker), a boot opening/closing properly, central locking, electric windows, air conditioning functionality, electrics such as the lights (not the bulb), satellite navigation, the CD player, the radio. Do you consider these wear and tear items? Where do those sit in your consideration of what is wear and tear? 

Im not specifically talking about what you would fix (clearly if you give a no quibble 6 month gearbox warranty then you are fixing it whether it's wear and tear or not). But I'm curious about what you consider to be wear and tear and what you consider to be a fault (whether or not it's a fault needing rectification).

 

 

 

[EPV 631]

Everything is subjected to wear and tear.

[DCS01 27]

I would consider brakes/tyres/service items to be wear and tear.

I would say anything else would be a conversation and depends on how picky the customer is

 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

Any part outside the period the Manufacturer would guarantee its worthiness. 

[lastyboy 23]

Tough one. If I was a customer and I would have bought a 5k car and 2 months later and with not many miles I wouldnt expect to be told that brake discs and pads are wear and tear. They should have been done pre sale in my opinion.

The amount of cars Ive had in the workshop from the car shop that want brakes, exhausts etc within 3 months if far too high.

[EPV 631]

19 minutes ago, lastyboy said:

Tough one. If I was a customer and I would have bought a 5k car and 2 months later and with not many miles I wouldnt expect to be told that brake discs and pads are wear and tear. They should have been done pre sale in my opinion.

The amount of cars Ive had in the workshop from the car shop that want brakes, exhausts etc within 3 months if far too high.

Ridiculous. If I sell a car with lightly lipped discs and 40% pads and a Customer buys a car and hoons it around like Lewis Hamilton on Amphetamines for 2 months he’s not entitled to feel hard done by. 

I’m selling a used vehicle. Every part of it is used and susceptible to wear and tear. Everything.  

Why should I put new pads and discs on if they’re lightly lipped or 70% worn? 

[lastyboy 23]

5 minutes ago, EPV said:

Ridiculous. If I sell a car with lightly lipped discs and 40% pads and a Customer buys a car and hoons it around like Lewis Hamilton on Amphetamines for 2 months he’s not entitled to feel hard done by. 

I’m selling a used vehicle. Every part of it is used and susceptible to wear and tear. Everything.  

Why should I put new pads and discs on if they’re lightly lipped or 70% worn? 

Fair play. We all see things differently.

[have a word with the wife 299]

1 hour ago, Technote said:

 (clearly if you give a no quibble 6 month gearbox warranty then you are fixing it whether it's wear and tear or not).

 

 

or are you ? how do we know what no quibble actually means ? no quibble could mean " i am not arguing with you, its wear and tear, no argument " and i am not mending it.

[Dealer 54]

Fed up to the back teeth of people that buy in their eyes "a new car" and want to keep coming back months after with normal wear and tear items that clearly were ok at the point of sale. 

[lastyboy 23]

15 minutes ago, EPV said:

Ridiculous. If I sell a car with lightly lipped discs and 40% pads and a Customer buys a car and hoons it around like Lewis Hamilton on Amphetamines for 2 months he’s not entitled to feel hard done by. 

I’m selling a used vehicle. Every part of it is used and susceptible to wear and tear. Everything.  

Why should I put new pads and discs on if they’re lightly lipped or 70% worn? 

There is nothing wrong with selling a car with a slight lip on the discs or quite worn pads but we have seen so many cars come in recently been sold with absolutely knackered discs that no way were servicable a month before. We even had a Land Cruiser come in the other day with a caliper problem and the selling dealer had put 1 rear disc on the back and left the other side knackered.

If you sold the car and you know the brakes were reasonable when it went out then you do have every right to claim its wear and tear.

[have a word with the wife 299]

customers need educating into what "USED" actually means, i dont know how like, but maybe we should use the word "part worn" like the tyres 

3 minutes ago, lastyboy said:

There is nothing wrong with selling a car with a slight lip on the discs or quite worn pads but we have seen so many cars come in recently been sold with absolutely knackered discs that no way were servicable a month before. We even had a Land Cruiser come in the other day with a caliper problem and the selling dealer had put 1 rear disc on the back and left the other side knackered.

If you sold the car and you know the brakes were reasonable when it went out then you do have every right to claim its wear and tear.

to be fair, the customer can nowadays easily view the discs with quite a few vehicles having alloys fitted nowadays, and the customer can bring this to the attention of the seller quite easy, some surface rust yes, ok, but not worn thin as a crisp 

[Arfur Dealy 823]

6 hours ago, EPV said:

Ridiculous. If I sell a car with lightly lipped discs and 40% pads and a Customer buys a car and hoons it around like Lewis Hamilton on Amphetamines for 2 months he’s not entitled to feel hard done by. 

I’m selling a used vehicle. Every part of it is used and susceptible to wear and tear. Everything.  

Why should I put new pads and discs on if they’re lightly lipped or 70% worn? 

+1

I freshly MOT every car. If brakes are “advised” then I replace them (great selling point). I always show the brake discs in my video and describe the depth of any lipping. I also do exactly the same with the tyres. 

I don’t skimp of brakes and tyres. When you have been transparent and Billy has been made aware upfront they cannot use it against you. End of. 

[Dave2302 387]

3 hours ago, Arfur Dealy said:

+1

I freshly MOT every car. If brakes are “advised” then I replace them (great selling point). I always show the brake discs in my video and describe the depth of any lipping. I also do exactly the same with the tyres. 

I don’t skimp of brakes and tyres. When you have been transparent and Billy has been made aware upfront they cannot use it against you. End of. 

Absolutely spot on !!

Fresh MOT, and do the advises, unless it is a stupid advise, but then you need a different Tester IMO.

Poll lol, .............................

How many of you change number plate or sidelight bulbs if one is a little dimmer than the other (black bulb syndrome) ?????????????

I do, a 20 pence bulb and usually 10 mins max. This is the kind of thing billy spots, then starts looking for faults, getting advice from the bar room mechanics etc etc ant then he becomes a PITA

3 minutes ago, tradex said:

Get the popcorn for this one guys

I agree, and taking brakes for an example we wouldn't send a car out with 70% worn brakes, they are cheap enough items to replace, as are tyres on wear bars, you know basic safety items etc, rightly or wrongly, that to me smacks of door stepper corner cutting. Those items may be 'legal' and servicable but, I always think "would I want my daughter to be driving this car" with brakes that low etc. To me it's part of the added value of buying from a professional traderand has good PR when selling, to write on a PDI sheet that the brakes are 70% worn or tyres on 2mm won't win any favours here. My own car wouldn't be running safety items to that standard and I don't expect to sell with those low standards. We are all operate differently and, our prepping costs aren't cheap but we sleep easy.

As for wear and tear in general, I would say consumables are wear and tear certainly and, everything else is a functional check before sale, then a conversation if it fails. We are selling second/third/fourth/fifth hand cars - sorry, but I personally hate that dealer speak of 'pre-owned', makes me cringe - and anything over 3 years old is getting tired and used so, allowances need to be made.

NB:- Plenty have said it but, I have still yet to be pointed to the section of the CRA-2015 where it actually states 'wear and tear' is implicitly excluded. This would be a good oppotunity to put that to bed.

As with everything we operate differently, what works for some won't for others.

Ultimately it's what the beak says at the end of the day.

 

I'm not sure if that was a wink missing there or something?

100% AGREED

[Technote 0]

Really interesting. I was expecting a range of views so I'm glad that's what's coming out thus far.

I get the point some of you make re obtaining a fresh MOT and fixing advisories, but what if your problem item isn't part of the MOT test list? Obviously that approach works well when considering e.g. brakes. Do you do anything else or act differently if the MOT passes that item by? I don't know, let's say the boot not opening correctly, or a broken CD player. 

In regard to the Consumer Rights Act, it doesn't explicitly use the words wear and tear (or just wear) anywhere on its face. Nor do the explanatory notes prepared with the Bill talk about it as something to consider. So any existence of that term must be implied onto the other terms which are themselves implied into contracts with consumers. It's why I'm here asking the question in all honesty. To get a bit of a barometer of thoughts.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Technote

[EPV 631]

1 minute ago, Technote said:

Really interesting. I was expecting a range of views so I'm glad that's what's coming out thus far.

I get the point some of you make re obtaining a fresh MOT and fixing advisories, but what if your problem item isn't part of the MOT test list? Obviously that approach works well when considering e.g. brakes. Do you do anything else or act differently if the MOT passes that item by? I don't know, let's say the boot not opening correctly, or a broken CD player. 

In regard to the Consumer Rights Act, it doesn't explicitly use the words wear and tear (or just wear) anywhere on its face. Nor do the explanatory notes prepared with the Bill talk about it as something to consider. So any existence of that term must be implied onto the other terms which are themselves implied into contracts with consumers. 

 

Naturally I don’t think you can sell a £7k car with the boot not operating properly. Or the CD player jammed. 

But on a £3k car, that is otherwise mechanically sound, I point it out, write it on the PDI sheet and billy signs it. 

 

[Technote 0]

Just now, EPV said:

Naturally I don’t think you can sell a £7k car with the boot not operating properly. Or the CD player jammed. 

But on a £3k car, that is otherwise mechanically sound, I point it out, write it on the PDI sheet and billy signs it. 

 

Oh of course pointing it out if you know at point of sale. That's different. They know about it. They've taken an informed decision. 

But what if they buy it on Saturday, then try and put all their shopping in it a few weeks later and the boot won't open. So customer calls you from the car park, surrounded cheek to cheek in the drivers seat with bread and orange juice. What then? That's where wear and tear or not comes in. If the item is faulty, I need to repair it. If i think its fair wear and tear, I can argue they shouldn't have expected an everlasting boot and should find their own mechanic with a speciality in boots.

[Technote 0]

2 minutes ago, tradex said:

Exactly right EPV, if it's something that's not a drama (a better example would be a non freezy cold aircon) it's noted on the PDI. I don't think anyone here would sell a car with a non-opening boot, be a bit hard to check the spare wheel on some cars and something even my most challanged customers would pick up on?

I think we've cross posted. I'm more talking about aftersales and how you determine whether you are footing the Bill (not just on the basis of goodwill, as you can do that if item is cheap and customer is nice regardless) than selling something you know is dodgy (or could have known, with a PDI, for those who don't do them). 

[Mojo121 229]

Dare I mention air con and compressors?! 

[Technote 0]

9 minutes ago, tradex said:

Exactly right EPV, if it's something that's not a drama (a better example would be a non freezy cold aircon) it's noted on the PDI. I don't think anyone here would sell a car with a non-opening boot, be a bit hard to check the spare wheel on some cars and something even my most challanged customers would pick up on?

I think you need to clarify 'faults present at point of sale' or 'faults after sale', your confusing both here, unless it's me? Either way cars go wrong, new and old and any customer needs to accept that the unbreakable car hasn't yet been invented, regardless of what VW tell you

Agree. Well, with CRA faults within 6m are considered faults at point of sale unless dealer can prove otherwise, so there is certainly some overlap for a failure in February to be "legally" at pos even if its only outed itself 4m after customer buys in October. 

That's probably why it reads I'm confusing both, because they are naturally interlinked. There's that blur.

I think it's complicated by the variety in advertising too. So on a personal level we have a 1986 Sierra Cosworth (personal car, not selling it). It has never failed an MOT and has done sub 100k miles. But if I was selling it things like "excellent condition for age" read differently to different people. To me that reads "for a Sierra Cosworth, it's fab. Don't cancel your RAC cover or take it somewhere you actually need to get to, like the hospital with your wife in labour, but if you're going to a shop a mile away you'll probably be alright. Tow bar supplied foc with car". 

[It's me 615]

for the record i read Technotes post last night and just thought

mm whats he/she trying to achieve maybe getting someone to admit something or working for the daily mail retc

if you are a trader doing the job right you dont let anuything go out you wouldnt put yourself in

you don't hope a car doesn't comer back because of something dodgy

you wouldn't let brakes go out 30% left

im not perfect but i too change lots of 501's because over the years its the first thing that pops after an mot so 12p a bulb is cheaper than grief

Technote we are professionals on here so im too out

[BHM 994]

8 hours ago, boring dave said:

 

+1

[have a word with the wife 299]

11 hours ago, tradex said:

Get the popcorn for this one guys

 

NB:- Plenty have said it but, I have still yet to be pointed to the section of the CRA-2015 where it actually states 'wear and tear' is implicitly excluded. This would be a good opportunity to put that to bed.

 

if we read cra guidnance for business, we see the word "reasonable" and the guide quite clearly states that new or second hand, the goods must be of satisfactory quality based on what a "reasonable" person would consider satisfactory, and in many cases a "reasonable" persons expectations for second hand goods would be lower than they would be for brand new. Yes, the goods should still work, UNLESS THE LACK OF FUNCTION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR [ PDI ] [or should have been discovered] ultimately, the final decision on who is and who isn't being reasonable rests with the courts, but this word "reasonable" when  brought to consumers attention, [ or the court defence] could quite easily avoid any court action under cra.

                                                  " r e a s o n a b le " 

 

[Stalker 180]

10 hours ago, boring dave said:

for the record i read Technotes post last night and just thought

mm whats he/she trying to achieve maybe getting someone to admit something or working for the daily mail retc

if you are a trader doing the job right you dont let anuything go out you wouldnt put yourself in

you don't hope a car doesn't comer back because of something dodgy

you wouldn't let brakes go out 30% left

im not perfect but i too change lots of 501's because over the years its the first thing that pops after an mot so 12p a bulb is cheaper than grief

Technote we are professionals on here so im too out

I was going to ask what interest he/she has in the motor trade. (If any)