Judge rules against dealer who didn’t replace cam-belt


There was no evidence to suggest that the timing belt had been changed after the manufacturer's recommended mileage to change it had passed.

Author: Jason Williams
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 9 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

It is often put to us that timing belts are wear and tear items that the seller can’t be held responsible for should one snap after purchase. 

However, a stark warning to the contrary was delivered in a recent case.  Dealer R sold a car to customer K.  There was no evidence to suggest that the timing belt had been changed after the manufacturer’s recommended mileage to change it had passed.  Moreover, there was no evidence that there was actually a problem with it.  For the purchaser, as a precaution, took the car elsewhere to have the belt replaced and sued our client for the cost of replacement and connected labour charges.

On this point the Court quite boldly found in favour of K and awarded full cost of repairs to be met by R.  The warning was stark, if there is the suggestion that the timing belt has not been replaced in accordance with the manufacturers’ recommendations then the court will find that the seller was in breach of contract and will be held liable for all damage caused by the result of any subsequent failure of that timing belt.

The Judge’s rationale was simple.  Due to the comparative ease of replacement compared with the devastating damage that can result from a timing belt break the onus will be on the garage to replace it pre-sale unless there is considerable mileage still left in the belt before the manufacturer suggests a replacement.

This is an important decision and one that should not be forgotten.  If in doubt ‘replace it’ and keep the evidence to show the belt has been replaced.  Ignore this ruling from the court at one’s peril!

Jason Williams

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.