Biting point was very high at time of purchase which raised my own suspicions about the clutch, but because it was a car I wasn't used to I stupidly trusted the garage who said they had a checked it ( a lie as I have subsequently found out you have to remove the gearbox to do this) and that it was only half worn. I feel completely gutted, gullable and tricked into buying this car when the specifically told me the clutch was only half worn and I stupidly believed them because I thought they were a trustworthy garage (had a good reputation) and knew more than me and were honest I am sure the clutch is dead as it has started to slip and will only get worse. I don't want to drive it incase it damages the flywheel.

I think you are missing the point, Consumer Law reverses the burden of proof within the first six months of purchase and thus I won't need to prove anything (I don't ride the clutch by the way, and have never had a to replace a clutch in my last car which I owned 7 years and for over 100,000 miles), it is the garage that will need to prove in court that the clutch wasn't on its way out when sold and judgement will then be made on the balance of probability. The act also makes it clear that all costs are bourne by the seller; this is clearly a good thing for society as a whole as it clamps down on dodgy dealers and makes sure they get punished for bodging a car before sale.

Yes, I have spoken to a solicitor this afternoon believe it or not. I don't seen how the dealer could use that as an excuse with any success. Yes a clutch can be burnt out in however long, but the fact is I drive sensibly and the law states that if a fault develops inside 6 months (doesn't matter if its a ware and tear item such as the clutch) then it is deemed by law that it was there when purchased unless the dealer can prove otherwise. The fact that a clutch can be burnt out in however long is certainly not proof that the fault was not there when the car was first purchased, and anyhow a small claims court will make its decisions based on the balance of probabilities and lets be very honest here, on the balance of probabilities it is obvious that the clutch was on the way out when the car was first purchase a mere 4 weeks ago. I have also read of many such successful claims for similar scenarios so doesn't seem like an issue at all.

I've just got off the phone from a solicitor's. They have re-iterated exactly what I have said above. Under section 23 subsection 2b the dealer is required to replace the clutch and bear and costs of doing so including the collection of the un-driveable vehicle. I have been advised to put this in writing to the dealer and give them one chance and once chance only to either come and collect the car and repair it, or agree to a local repair where I am. If they fail to do either of the above I will simply commence legal proceedings and I cannot see them having a leg to stand on. I suspect once I deliver an NIP on their doorstep they will cough up! "23Right to repair or replacementE+W+S+N.I. This section has no associated Explanatory Notes (1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)). (2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must— (a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and (b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)."

Sorry, please delete this post I accidently posted as a new thread somehow, and only meant to make a response to my original post

I've just got off the phone from a solicitor's. They have re-iterated exactly what I have said above. Under section 23 subsection 2b the dealer is required to replace the clutch and bear and costs of doing so including the collection of the un-driveable vehicle. I have been advised to put this in writing to the dealer and give them one chance and once chance only to either come and collect the car and repair it, or agree to a local repair where I am. If they fail to do either of the above I will simply commence legal proceedings and I cannot see them having a leg to stand on. I suspect once I deliver an NIP on their doorstep they will cough up! "23Right to repair or replacementE+W+S+N.I. This section has no associated Explanatory Notes (1)This section applies if the consumer has the right to repair or replacement (see section 19(3) and (4)). (2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must— (a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and (b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage)."

The consumer rights act though mentioned by mch1991 above (thanks) clearly states the burden of proof is on the dealer within the first 6 months. Therefore they have to prove the clutch was not faulty when sold (as the default assumption is that it was within the first 6 months), which is virtually impossible without removing the gearbox before sale and checking the clutch wear. The fact is the car is not of satisfactory quality and On the balance of probabilities a small claims court should quite easily conclude therefore that the dealer is at fault and the fault was there at purchase, surely? I can't see them having a leg to stand on in this regard. The only question in my eyes is whether I have to fit the bill to return it to them to get it repaired, or whether this is their liability and I can insist on them recovering it or having it repaired locally..

Dear all, 31 days ago I purchased a Mini One Convertible with just 39,000 miles on the clock. Today (31 days after purchase, typically just outside the 30 day rejection window) the clutch has started slipping badly. I phoned the dealer who refused to accept any liability. I put pressure on them and they offered me £100 towards the cost of repairs (c. £400). I told them under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 the car was not of satisfactory quality and that, as this fault has developed inside 6 months, the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise. I told them I would not hesitate to take them to a small claims court to recover my costs should I need to get this repaired privately. They then offered to repair the clutch themselves. The problem is the car is not drivable ( And I am worried they would try and bodge a repair) and their garage is 200 miles away from me. My interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act is that they are liable to come and collect the car or liable for the expenses of having it taken to their garage if they want to repair it themselves.. Is this true? If so I will insist on having the car repaired locally (unless they come and collect it), and if they do not pay the very reasonable bill I have been quoted I will take them to court. Please can someone kindly clarify if I am able to insist they collect the faulty car or fit the bill for have it taken back to their garage? Thanks so much in advance, Nicola