992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject

[BandOfBrothers]

maz8062 said:

Wow, that’s some fked up st, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction.

The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward.

It’s been an eye opener for me all of this rejection malarkey, but I think it’s loaded against the dealers because cars do go wrong and for the unscrupulous, it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months.

Regardless of this and the other outcomes for the OP, I’m sure he’ll take on board all comments not just those that support his stance. Good luck with your next purchase and please start a new thread if you decide to reject that one too within 6 months

Somebody doesn't understand the difference between list price and manufacturing cost.

[Slowboathome]

maz8062 said:

Wow, that’s some fked up st, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction.

The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward.

Indeed. Time for a GoFundMe for Porsche and its main dealers I think.

Is there any way we can get them added to the National Lottery charities? Or maybe a special Dealers In Need day?

maz8062 said:

it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months.

Or you could use a sophisticated electronic tool to nick one and keep it forever.

[Forester1965]

Presumably if the customer has fulfilled the criteria to reject the car the dealer has a strong case to similarly claim redress from Porsche.

[AyBee]

Sukh13 said:

Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution.

Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know.

[Slowboathome]

AyBee said:

Sukh13 said:

Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution.

Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know.

Apparently the dealer would rather refund him than fix the car in a timely fashion. Odd choice on their part but I guess they know which is the best option for them.

[Wills2]

Forester1965 said:

Presumably if the customer has fulfilled the criteria to reject the car the dealer has a strong case to similarly claim redress from Porsche.

In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support.

[Forester1965]

Wills2 said:

In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support.

Some dealers are Porsche owned (like this one), some aren't. My post was in response to the poster implying dealers generally would fall foul of this.

A B2B sale would be governed by the contract as you say, but also s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act with regards quality/fitness for purpose. In other words the dealer wouldn't be reliant only on their contract with the manufacturer but would also have a statutory basis for redress.

Ultimately if pushed by the dealer the manufacturer bears the cost of faulty products, one way or another.

[MDL111]

Slowboathome said:

AyBee said:

Sukh13 said:

Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution.

Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know.

Apparently the dealer would rather refund him than fix the car in a timely fashion. Odd choice on their part but I guess they know which is the best option for them.

that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG .
Then again Ferrari once kept my car for 6 months to fix a fault as the part was delayed and then didn't even honor the statutory warranty when it broke again within 18 months (warranty should be 24, but they only accept 12) - so I am no longer surprised by anything. Dealer lost the Ferrari franchise at some point, so I suspect they did some other stuff too...

[ChrisW.]

that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG .


I agree completely, it just feels like bad business ....

[Wills2]

Forester1965 said:

Wills2 said:

In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support.

Some dealers are Porsche owned (like this one), some aren't. My post was in response to the poster implying dealers generally would fall foul of this.

A B2B sale would be governed by the contract as you say, but also s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act with regards quality/fitness for purpose. In other words the dealer wouldn't be reliant only on their contract with the manufacturer but would also have a statutory basis for redress.

Ultimately if pushed by the dealer the manufacturer bears the cost of faulty products, one way or another.

Having spent 20 years sat in the middle of the retailer and manufacturer, it all comes down to who has the power, the return of faulty goods will be contractual, sometimes the retailer sucks it up other times the brand does and any compromise in between.

Everything else is wandering about in the weeds looking for edge cases to waste your time on.

[Slowboathome]

ChrisW. said:

that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG .


I agree completely, it just feels like bad business ....

I had a problem with a leased Polo once. Fix was easy and obvious but it had to be booked in for 2 separate visits 'because flow chart'. To his credit, the service manager looked embarrassed.

Maybe Porsche dealers are tightly constrained by their booking system.

Edited by Slowboathome on Thursday 9th May 12:26

[Forester1965]

Agreed. The point being the CRA doesn't result in dealers going bust left right and centre as some claim will happen.

[Cheib]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Had they put it on a diagnostic machine when it arrived they would have seen what if was, realised it was a simple fix. Replaced the part and off we go.

Instead I am in a merc e class for 3 weeks ( truly horrid thing ) and they are paying for it.

Seems an odd way to run a business to me

Loan car is paid for by Porsche if a car can’t be driven and gets recovered. Unfortunately the OPC bears none of that cost so there is no incentive to speed up repair of the car other than good customer service….

If it’s a loan car that gets provided while the car is being fixed then that is generally the OPC’s own loan car.

[monkfish1]

Abc321 said:

maz8062 said:

Wow, that’s some fked up st, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction.

The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward.

It’s been an eye opener for me all of this rejection malarkey, but I think it’s loaded against the dealers because cars do go wrong and for the unscrupulous, it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months.

I'm sure Porsche won't lose any sleep over £60k.

You're right that cars do go wrong. And so OP gave the dealer chance to rectify. if they cannot, you reject. This is why there are these policies/laws/rules in place.


Good result OP, I would have done the same.

Quite!

The solution is make cars that work. Then no one will give them back.

They choose instead to produce cars with known faults with no fix. Best they suck up the costs that brings.

Mind you, that applies to most manufacturers these days.

[funboxster]

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!

[BandOfBrothers]

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!

Absolute shysters.

Another nail in the coffin for the posters who opined that you should keep it...

[Slowboathome]

Sounds like their workshop time is worth more than £10k.

Or they're idiots.

[FMOB]

maz8062 said:

funboxster said:

And so, a postscript to my OP in mid April, which generated a hell of a lot of responses.

I know that some didn't agree with my decision to reject the car, but I would counter by saying, if it was your new nigh on £200k car and these faults started occurring within the first month(s), with a month's wait before they could look at it, what decision would you make? Put up with it, keep your fingers crossed it doesn't come back or decide to reject?

The CRA 2015 is biased in the customer's favour for the first 6 months. The pendulum swings back in the seller's favour after that and the consumer has to prove the fault was there from the beginning (as I understand it)

The dealer did accept rejection, based on the fact the car became faulty in the first 30 days and that they'd had one chance to fix it.(Their words)

They agreed to refund me the purchase price of the car, less 45ppm for mileage covered, so £900 deducted. Again, you might not agree with this, but they can deduct an allowance for usage, which seems reasonable.

The CRA is poor in this respect, with little guidance, but surely the fairest way is based on mileage and the HMRC figure. Anyway, based on the CRA government guide for business that I read, they can't deduct depreciation.

I never had buyer's remorse, despite what some said. I planned to keep it for two years, but I lost complete confidence in the car and the brand.

Thanks to those who pm'd directly with their input. Much appreciated.

Wow, that’s some fked up st, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction.

The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward.

It’s been an eye opener for me all of this rejection malarkey, but I think it’s loaded against the dealers because cars do go wrong and for the unscrupulous, it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months.

Regardless of this and the other outcomes for the OP, I’m sure he’ll take on board all comments not just those that support his stance. Good luck with your next purchase and please start a new thread if you decide to reject that one too within 6 months

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.

Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46

[Jeremy-75qq8]

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 !

[FMOB]

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 !

Unless the dealer fixed it, pretty pissed off I imagine and guess they may find out quite soon.