992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today.
So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad.
One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine !
£10k = £10,000 So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad.
One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine !
FMOB said:
I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it.
If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable.If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46
I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle.
Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it.
Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions.
Forester1965 said:
PinkHouse said:
As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership
What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)?funboxster said:
As another postscript, the car I rejected is already back on sale on the OPC's website, at £10k less than I paid. So, as their customer they were going to make me wait a month for them to look at it. They fixed (or reset it) in under a week!
Sounds to be they have reset the fault codes and relisted it for sale! Could be beneficial to make others aware of what car this may be so they don’t get burnt.
maz8062 said:
FMOB said:
I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it.
If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable.If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46
I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle.
Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it.
Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions.
You reference the OP doing this twice which seems to be your main beef with it, the OP has put up a significant amount of money to buy the car in the first place, I do not believe they looked at the purchase and said it will go faulty so I can buy it, use it, thrash it and get my money back whilst running the risk it might not be faulty and they would stuck with it.
If you were in the position and you maybe you are to buy a £200k car and got into the OP's situation, I assume you would just take all the crap a car dealer can dish out, be left with a lemon and still be smiling about it, somehow I doubt it and you would do exactly what the OP has done.
PinkHouse said:
Forester1965 said:
PinkHouse said:
As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership
What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)?ninepoint2 said:
Well in that case ensure the product is perfect and the customer service similar
Exactly.I don't understand what planet people on here, except that it's probably fully green.
I bet the dealership was all over the OP during the buying process, then as soon as the car develops a fault they clearly do a cursory inspection then tell him to come back in a month - for a job that they could apparently fix within a week when it's their money on the line!!!
Give your necks a tug people.
PinkHouse said:
Forester1965 said:
PinkHouse said:
As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership
What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)?
maz8062 said:
FMOB said:
I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it.
If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable.If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have.
Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46
I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle.
Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it.
Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions.
I don't buy an expensive supercar, on the hope I can reject it asap, get my money back and trial the next toy, at no or minimal expense. Before the TS, I had a DB11, for five years. Why five years? Because it never missed a beat. I only moved it on, because it was then 7 years old, was concerned about possible big repair bills on the way and the opportunity to buy the TS came up.
The McLaren I rejected was off the road for two of the nine months I owned it. FYI, I accepted a £20k hit, which was basically the cost of the specced extras. They refunded the basic price to me.
I was really gutted when the TS went wrong in month one and I could have rejected it then and got all my money back, but thought no, let's give the OPC a chance. This was before they told me one month's wait to look at it. The seeds of doubt were then sown. When it went wrong again, in month four, with the same problem and one month wait time again, my head then overruled my heart and the TS became a faulty product, not a complex car, that i should accept will go wrong.
I never started this post to put one over the OPC. I was just looking for advice on whether there was guidance anywhere on what would be reasonable to expect as a deduction for wear and tear/mileage.
Let's just agree to disagree.
robj4 said:
Jeremy-75qq8 said:
To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today.
So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad.
One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine !
£10k = £10,000 So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad.
One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine !
Jeremy-75qq8, a different poster who rejected a different car, said that the car he rejected and was refunded for, sold for £1,000 less than the refund amount.
Edited by InitialDave on Saturday 11th May 21:31
funboxster said:
I do feel I have to reply to this Maz. You're fully entitled to an opinion on the decision I took, but I have to take issue with some points, as you don't know me. I've never thrashed( I value my licence too much) or tracked any of my cars.
I don't buy an expensive supercar, on the hope I can reject it asap, get my money back and trial the next toy, at no or minimal expense. Before the TS, I had a DB11, for five years. Why five years? Because it never missed a beat. I only moved it on, because it was then 7 years old, was concerned about possible big repair bills on the way and the opportunity to buy the TS came up.
The McLaren I rejected was off the road for two of the nine months I owned it. FYI, I accepted a £20k hit, which was basically the cost of the specced extras. They refunded the basic price to me.
I was really gutted when the TS went wrong in month one and I could have rejected it then and got all my money back, but thought no, let's give the OPC a chance. This was before they told me one month's wait to look at it. The seeds of doubt were then sown. When it went wrong again, in month four, with the same problem and one month wait time again, my head then overruled my heart and the TS became a faulty product, not a complex car, that i should accept will go wrong.
I never started this post to put one over the OPC. I was just looking for advice on whether there was guidance anywhere on what would be reasonable to expect as a deduction for wear and tear/mileage.
Let's just agree to disagree.
I think there is actually a limit to the entitlement of opinions. And people shouldn't be entitled to their facts.I don't buy an expensive supercar, on the hope I can reject it asap, get my money back and trial the next toy, at no or minimal expense. Before the TS, I had a DB11, for five years. Why five years? Because it never missed a beat. I only moved it on, because it was then 7 years old, was concerned about possible big repair bills on the way and the opportunity to buy the TS came up.
The McLaren I rejected was off the road for two of the nine months I owned it. FYI, I accepted a £20k hit, which was basically the cost of the specced extras. They refunded the basic price to me.
I was really gutted when the TS went wrong in month one and I could have rejected it then and got all my money back, but thought no, let's give the OPC a chance. This was before they told me one month's wait to look at it. The seeds of doubt were then sown. When it went wrong again, in month four, with the same problem and one month wait time again, my head then overruled my heart and the TS became a faulty product, not a complex car, that i should accept will go wrong.
I never started this post to put one over the OPC. I was just looking for advice on whether there was guidance anywhere on what would be reasonable to expect as a deduction for wear and tear/mileage.
Let's just agree to disagree.
A collection of assumptions, most of them absurd, doesn't even qualify as an "opinion" from my perspective.
Thankfully, people like that are rare, even on PH.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff