992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
I did email the DP again on Thursday, stating that the car has not been used since 2 April, is not available to me and your service dept can't look at it for a month and I also sent a picture of the mileage 2497. His response was, I'll pass your email to the team looking into your case!
He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
funboxster said:
I did email the DP again on Thursday, stating that the car has not been used since 2 April, is not available to me and your service dept can't look at it for a month and I also sent a picture of the mileage 2497. His response was, I'll pass your email to the team looking into your case!
He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
It may be that if the OPC were to make you an offer based on usage which you could not agree, were this to be taken to court to be settled and the compensation judged to be less generous than the offer originally made by the OPC and refused by yourself, then you could be liable for their costs.He has previously promised in writing to come back yesterday with an update, which, so far I haven't received. I'll see what happens on Monday.
I've been doing more research on the CRA 2015 and came across a Department fro Business, Innovation and Skills document entitled CRA Goods-Guidance for Business.
The section under final right to reject-Making a deduction for use (pages 50-53) is interesting and relating to motor vehicles, clearly states- Note that the deduction must be calculated based on the use the consumer had from the goods, ie mileage and NOT the second-hand value of the goods. They also have to justify the deduction they offer, which I don't have to accept. That would appear to remove the dealer's opportunity to build in depreciation.
As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
ChrisW. said:
It may be that if the OPC were to make you an offer based on usage which you could not agree, were this to be taken to court to be settled and the compensation judged to be less generous than the offer originally made by the OPC and refused by yourself, then you could be liable for their costs.
As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
Yes, I accept that, so let the bartering begin. The sales manager at the OPC has left a message to ring him this morning, so I'm guessing they want me to come in for a meeting. As in the recent Hugh Grant / Mirror ? phone hacking case .... where Grant accepted an offer because he couldn't afford the potential costs, even though he wanted judgement in his favour ??
nickfrog said:
That's where Porsche GB or GmbH should in an ideal world support and help absorb some of the losses out of the original gross margin at their level or at factory level.
Porsche AG are the one's that have to authorise repair work/methods in a case where there are continuous/repeated faults. OPC Tech's send report to them and they advise course of action. I assume from that they have some liability too.Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff