Brand New Citroen DS5 - plenty of faults and bad paint job
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
Those panels aren't snags, they're bloody awful. Or do you disagree?
I agree the front bumper is awful, the colour and the panel gaps. If the dealer fixed the bumper under warranty and it was the right colour with beautiful uniform gaps do you think the op would have grounds to still reject the car?trama said:
WinstonWolf said:
Those panels aren't snags, they're bloody awful. Or do you disagree?
I agree the front bumper is awful, the colour and the panel gaps. If the dealer fixed the bumper under warranty and it was the right colour with beautiful uniform gaps do you think the op would have grounds to still reject the car?
A brand new car should be fault free, including minor cosmetic defects. This is the wording of the law is not mine. That front bumper alone is more then a minor paint defect.
My goal is not shaming Citroen, please believe me. Loeb and not Schumacher is my favourite driver, although both are undeniable true Legends. What Citroen did in WRC in the past decade or so is just Beautiful. Also Citroen chose to walk different path then everyone else and this is rare. Off-course non counts if you keep building crappy cars and/or your customer service is non existing.
All I want is brand new car that looks and behaves like one, or if this is not possible - a full refund. Citroen and the Dealer are being shamed by their own actions.
Why should I pay for the car's depreciation because they are not able to provide me with a functional brand new car. Why should I care that they are not making a profit from this deal. Why should I pay the bill for their incompetence, unprofessional behaviour and appalling after selling customer service.
They never called back to see if I'm happy with the car after I returned it first time. I was the one to keep call back and to insist for them to have another look at the car. They even tryed to convince me to take it to my local Dealer to have it checked with no stamped and signed warranty certificate. No PDI. They promised to refund me the wheel alignment job and for the fuel used to bring the car back to them and so far after a couple of calls and emails - no refund, nada.
This car doesn't have minor issues, this are serious ones. You can argue as much as you want that the steering is fine... is not. Anyone who has an average experience and knowledge about cars can tell you that is not.
Cheers
My goal is not shaming Citroen, please believe me. Loeb and not Schumacher is my favourite driver, although both are undeniable true Legends. What Citroen did in WRC in the past decade or so is just Beautiful. Also Citroen chose to walk different path then everyone else and this is rare. Off-course non counts if you keep building crappy cars and/or your customer service is non existing.
All I want is brand new car that looks and behaves like one, or if this is not possible - a full refund. Citroen and the Dealer are being shamed by their own actions.
Why should I pay for the car's depreciation because they are not able to provide me with a functional brand new car. Why should I care that they are not making a profit from this deal. Why should I pay the bill for their incompetence, unprofessional behaviour and appalling after selling customer service.
They never called back to see if I'm happy with the car after I returned it first time. I was the one to keep call back and to insist for them to have another look at the car. They even tryed to convince me to take it to my local Dealer to have it checked with no stamped and signed warranty certificate. No PDI. They promised to refund me the wheel alignment job and for the fuel used to bring the car back to them and so far after a couple of calls and emails - no refund, nada.
This car doesn't have minor issues, this are serious ones. You can argue as much as you want that the steering is fine... is not. Anyone who has an average experience and knowledge about cars can tell you that is not.
Cheers
TooMany2cvs said:
Would you be so kind as to give us a reference to that law? Act, section?
Just use a search engine and you will find pages like:http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/nireland/consumer_ni...
The above link makes reference to Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The following link to FOS homepage explains your rights when you buy a product with credit, like I did. In my case was Conditional Sale Agreement and Section 75 of Consumers Credit Act 1974 applies. If the vehicle is purchased through a Hire Purchase contract then The Supply of Goods Act 1973 applyes.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Also try to find Whatcar Helpdesk Factsheet on internet as this will clarify your rights as well.
Hope this helps Adrian C
Edited by mbrad26 on Wednesday 16th April 02:14
IforB said:
TooMany2cvs said:
mbrad26 said:
A brand new car should be fault free, including minor cosmetic defects. This is the wording of the law is not mine.
Would you be so kind as to give us a reference to that law? Act, section?Lovely. Now, which bit says "A brand new car should be fault free, including minor cosmetic defects"? Because I can't find anything that even refers specifically to cars, let alone uses the wording you claim it does. So, you have to admit, that is not the law's wording but yours.
Yes, SOGA refers to acceptable quality, and yes, it refers to cosmetic defects. Nobody's denying that bumper is an abysmal fit and colour match. Is that sufficient to reject the entire car? No, because respraying and refitting it is a very quick and easy fix. There's a proportionality test in there, don't forget...
SOGA said:
48B Repair or replacement of the goods
(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
...
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
...(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies
So we're back to the steering issue alone. And that's a whole 'nuther can of worms, because you've already had it "repaired" elsewhere (an "action incompatible" with the supplier's ongoing ownership, therefore tacit acceptance?), and you've already - apparently - compared it with a sample (which you would have had ample opportunity to test before agreeing the contract) and agreed that it does not differ from that sample. And, again, there's that test of proportionality for rejection...(1)If section 48A above applies, the buyer may require the seller—
(a)to repair the goods, or
(b)to replace the goods.
...
(3)The buyer must not require the seller to repair or, as the case may be, replace the goods if that remedy is—
...(b)disproportionate in comparison to the other of those remedies
TooMany2cvs said:
So we're back to the steering issue alone. And that's a whole 'nuther can of worms, because you've already had it "repaired" elsewhere (an "action incompatible" with the supplier's ongoing ownership, therefore tacit acceptance?), and you've already - apparently - compared it with a sample (which you would have had ample opportunity to test before agreeing the contract) and agreed that it does not differ from that sample. And, again, there's that test of proportionality for rejection...
Rubbish. Law doesn't have to explicitly state anything, in fact very little specific prohibition is actually usually contained within it. I would love to see someone try and argue that a brand new car sold as such isn't supposed to be free of faults.
Simply put, this car was sold as a new car, but at a discount. Had they been open and said that it was a new car, but it had been damaged and repaired, which it obviously has, as no manufacturer would allow that through QA at the end of the line and no dealer would accept a car in that state, then the buyer would have no comeback if it was sold as seen.
As it is, there is an expectation that anyone who buys a car or any goods is that it is free from damage or wear of any kind. If it isn't, then it isn't a "new" car and should not sold as such, no matter what discount is provided.
I would absolutely LOVE to see someone stand up in a court and try to prove that a brand new vehicle is still a new vehicle even though it's been damaged and repaired, badly. They wouldn't just be laughed out of the door, but have eggs pelted at them at the same time.
IforB said:
Had they been open and said that it was a new car, but it had been damaged and repaired, which it obviously has,
Citroen UK have no record of the car having been damaged in transit.How has it 'obviously' had this happen to it without comparing the panel fit, checking bolt heads, etc. to other examples?
TooMany2cvs said:
It always helps, though, if it does say what somebody says it does and then reassures us all with "And that's the actual wording of the law, not my words"
I can't help but notice that somehow I have offended you. If so please accept my apologies. If Citizens Advice tell on their home page that a new car should be fault free, even from minor ones how should I interpret this. Are these my words?
If Financial Ombudsman Service does the same thing, when referring to new cars, how on earth is this the product of my imagination?
Let's not forget about legal precedents rulings that have become laws and which very clearly define how a new car should be and what customers should expect from a new car.
Thank you
KTF said:
Citroen UK have no record of the car having been damaged in transit.
How has it 'obviously' had this happen to it without comparing the panel fit, checking bolt heads, etc. to other examples?
Do you really think that the factory would release a car with a front bumper fitting that badly, and painted in a different shade of grey to the rest of the car?How has it 'obviously' had this happen to it without comparing the panel fit, checking bolt heads, etc. to other examples?
Do you think it'd get through the import and distribution centres like that?
Somebody at the dealer's nudged it, maybe damaging the front suspension as well as the bumper - and they've not told CitUK. They've quite possibly not even told their boss. They've probably got a mate in the bodyshop to fix it on the quiet, then hoped they could punt it out without anybody noticing. Gawd knows why or how. They must have been daft to even think it'd work. Mind you, it took the OP a fortnight to notice it...
mbrad26 said:
If Citizens Advice tell on their home page that a new car should be fault free, even from minor ones how should I interpret this. Are these my words?
If Financial Ombudsman Service does the same thing, when referring to new cars, how on earth is this the product of my imagination?
Let's not forget about legal precedents rulings that have become laws and which very clearly define how a new car should be and what customers should expect from a new car.
Look, you've got a case for the bumper, definitely. You may very well have a case for the steering. But don't embarrass yourself by embroidering all this rubbish to support your desired outcome.If Financial Ombudsman Service does the same thing, when referring to new cars, how on earth is this the product of my imagination?
Let's not forget about legal precedents rulings that have become laws and which very clearly define how a new car should be and what customers should expect from a new car.
You explicitly stated that the _wording_ of the law said something specific, which it clearly doesn't.
You're now saying that the home page on the CAB's website says something. Their home page doesn't even mention cars, let alone new ones - and searching their site for the words "new car" doesn't come back with anything even remotely relevant in a quick scan of the 74 results. Searching their site for "new car fault free" comes back with three results - small claims, bedroom tax and disabled volunteers.
The Financial Ombudsman doesn't even deal with car purchases, apart from the finance products you might take on them.
If there are legal precedents that support your case, great. Name a few. But I'll bet there's just as many which give the dealer right to repair in cases like this.
In the meantime, we could just remember those sections of SOGA that I quoted above - the ones that clearly show that you certainly DO have the right to get the car repaired, but you're very premature in trying to reject it, and that the supplier has the right to repair where rejection would be disproportionate. Like a mis-matched front bumper and a minor suspension/steering alignment issue on a new car.
You have a case. Nobody's saying otherwise. But calm down a bit, think rather than rant, and you might actually start to get somewhere in getting some goodwill and help in resolving it from both the dealer and CitUK. At least give them more than one full working day between noticing the bumper mis-match and starting threads such as this. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, remember?
If t'were me, especially given the distance involved - I'd just vow not to ever darken the supplying dealer's door again, and get your local dealer onside with resolving what's clearly a couple of easily and quickly fixable problems. Re-reading your original post, I notice that you've actually been talking to them, that they agree that there's a steering issue - but, rather than let them resolve it, you immediately went back to shouting to the original supplying dealer, who you'd already started to try to reject the car through. And, less than a week later, you're shouting all over t'web about it.
If this was your customer, would you regard these as the actions of a reasonable man trying to get the problem _solved_?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff