992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject

[breadvan]

Hats off to the OP, I wasn't expecting that so easily!

I still fundamentally disagree with opting for the last resort first, whether that be in marriage, conflict, debt, rejecting a car, whatever. But I accept we all have different thresholds for throwing in the towel.

I've had my eyes opened with this thread, I'm just not sure what I'll take away.

[MDL111]

breadvan said:

Hats off to the OP, I wasn't expecting that so easily!

I still fundamentally disagree with opting for the last resort first, whether that be in marriage, conflict, debt, rejecting a car, whatever. But I accept we all have different thresholds for throwing in the towel.

I've had my eyes opened with this thread, I'm just not sure what I'll take away.

do not launch a new car manufacturer in the UK

[Wills2]

If the OP had wanted to keep the car then he would have let them fix it, but he didn't and fancied something else a Roma I think, so used his consumer rights to return the car, you can't have a go at him for merely exercising his rights.

Nicely played if you ask me I don't understand why people have an issue with it.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I commented a while ago that I had rejected a new 911.

I have been in contact with the op and it is the same dealership.

When I rejected mine I felt crushed to be frank. I had waited 2 years for it.

The lent me a turbo s and we're a delight to deal with. They were given time to resolve the issue and could not do so.

Would I buy another ? Maybe. I am currently too busy to spend time on another toy , but my car and the 2 brand new loan cars all had issues so the overall quality control is poor. By contrast my Cayenne just works.

No one can buy a car with the aim of gaming the system. The car must have a real fault to reject it.

You have 2 opportunities. Month 1 and month 6. There is no " oh let's give them a chance ". If you are on one of these dates you must act. Now the dealer may then do a deal with you and allow a further period of rejection etc post another repair ( I was offered this ) but at the outset at 6 months and a day you are out of luck.

The comments about the op are in my view pretty poor and I suspect come from those content to hide behind a keyboard and not drop £200k on a toy in the drive.

The dealers know your rights as well as you do and in my case ( and the op it seems ) simply and efficiently did what the law requires. What else would you expect them to do ?

[guyvert1]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

I commented a while ago that I had rejected a new 911.

I have been in contact with the op and it is the same dealership.

When I rejected mine I felt crushed to be frank. I had waited 2 years for it.

The lent me a turbo s and we're a delight to deal with. They were given time to resolve the issue and could not do so.

Would I buy another ? Maybe. I am currently too busy to spend time on another toy , but my car and the 2 brand new loan cars all had issues so the overall quality control is poor. By contrast my Cayenne just works.

No one can buy a car with the aim of gaming the system. The car must have a real fault to reject it.

You have 2 opportunities. Month 1 and month 6. There is no " oh let's give them a chance ". If you are on one of these dates you must act. Now the dealer may then do a deal with you and allow a further period of rejection etc post another repair ( I was offered this ) but at the outset at 6 months and a day you are out of luck.

The comments about the op are in my view pretty poor and I suspect come from those content to hide behind a keyboard and not drop £200k on a toy in the drive.

The dealers know your rights as well as you do and in my case ( and the op it seems ) simply and efficiently did what the law requires. What else would you expect them to do ?

This...

Well done OP, good luck with whatever comes next !

[nickfrog]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

The comments about the op are in my view pretty poor and I suspect come from those content to hide behind a keyboard and not drop £200k on a toy in the drive.

Exactly. It's super easy to be aggressively judgemental when it's not your money.

[robj4]

Thanks to the OP, and others with similar experiences for sharing. My guess is quite a few who have read this thread have learnt something.

Last year I rejected two second hand Amaroks, both from VW dealerships. One broke down on the way home and the other was mis sold. Under distance buying regs both were refunded in full and collected from me at no cost. (under 1000 miles). It surprised me how easy it was to enact and I was very grateful not to have been left with £25k lemons.

[bennno]

Thread has been informative

Now googling supercar with dodgy build quality that means I can tool round for a few months in it at 45p mile and reject…..

Maserati mc20 must be a good gamble shout…. Or an Artura.

[maz8062]

bennno said:

Thread has been informative

Now googling supercar with dodgy build quality that means I can tool round for a few months in it at 45p mile and reject…..

Maserati mc20 must be a good gamble shout…. Or an Artura.

Indeed. But you have to be able to front the cash up front as taking the car out on finance may mean that the finance company insist that you give the dealer more time to sort out the issue before they agree to cancel the debt.

Those championing this approach are being shortsighted in my view. Someone has to pay for this one way or the other. The op has probably enjoyed cars in excess of £100k (in depreciation terms) and only had to pay peanuts for the privilege. Add in the warranty work for his Aston and it’s probably nearer £120k. Who pays for that? Someone has to pay.

For the consumer this is a great law, but it is there to protect consumers not to be exploited by those with the means and wherewithal to play the system. It will also ultimately cost the consumer more because corporates do not like losing money, they’ll go bust otherwise.

I work in finance. I also take a puritanical view on these types of things. If one buys something; goods, services, and uses that product, it has to be paid for. If you use it, enjoy it, bask in it, pay for it. If you buy a car and drive it for 6 months and 2500 miles and lose faith in it because it is unreliable and you want out, pay for your use of it. No, not at 45p per mile when the car has lost £50k as a result of your use - pay for your use of it. That is how things typically work in advance societies.

This thread has shown that the op is not the only one that has rejected cars for their money back. Personally I think this is a slippery slope and I hope a better way can be found for folk to enjoy these cars without someone having to lose a shed load of cash.

Just my view folks - don’t attack me.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I won't attack but I will reply.

I assume you refer to me in terms of others rejecting cars.

So you wait 2 years for a car. You collect it. You return to the dealer within the hour. Even your 13 year old son say " emm not right dad ".

The dealer in this case ( same dealer as op ) could not book the car in until day 28 - Which to be frank did not help their cause and a new car should in my view be booked in the following day regardless ) book it in and give notice of rejection. It's a premium product and faulty from day 1. Dealer accepts. Gives loan car. Dealer seeks to repair vehicle for extended period. Fails. Refund given. There are no quibbles at all from the dealer. They want to put things right and have me buy another car.

So take this apart for me and tell me what you would have done - as if you tell me this would be all fine for you then I simply don't believe you.

I also don't believe they will make a loss. They had the margin on the car and since I purchased there was a £10k price increase.

I don't follow how anyone can possibly game the system.

The car must have faults. If more than a month has past those faults must reoccur. Why would a new premium product have recurring faults? I don't buy the complexity argument. The turbo s has been around for 3 (4?) years and is a mass production vehicle from a major manufacturer sold at a massive premium. The kit on it is pretty much the same as all the other 992 either in base form or an option.

Turn it on its head. Imagine a thread. " Porsche sold me a £200k dud and won't refund "

Who wins ? Not Porsche.

What I can tell you is that if you buy a Porsche and it is a dud they sort it out. I know what headline I would prefer if I was Porsche.

The turbo s is an astonishing vehicle and it is highly likely I will buy another. That is what they want. To be honest I will likely be used so I can test drive first and will be from an opc so it has a 2 year warrenty. A win again the opc network ( likely the selling dealer ) seeks another car. Would I do that had I been stiffed ? No.

I have had all sorts of cars spanning 30 years and the only car that ever gave me issues was a high miles merc SLK with a dodgy gearbox. It was High miles and stuff happens.

You are welcome to your point of view but pushing lemons onto consumers is not in anyones interest.

Edited by Jeremy-75qq8 on Friday 26th April 06:48

Edited by Jeremy-75qq8 on Friday 26th April 07:02

[moonigan]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

I won't attack but I will reply.

I assume you refer to me in terms of others rejecting cars.

So you wait 2 years for a car. You collect it. You return to the dealer within the hour. Even your 13 year old son say " emm not right dad ".

The dealer in this case ( same dealer as op ) could not book the car in until day 28 - Which to be frank did not help their cause and a new car should in my view be booked in the following day regardless ) book it in and give notice of rejection. It's a premium product and faulty from day 1. Dealer accepts. Gives loan car. Dealer seeks to repair vehicle for extended period. Fails. Refund given. There are no quibbles at all from the dealer. They want to put things right and have me buy another car.

So take this apart for me and tell me what you would have done - as if you tell me this would be all fine for you then I simply don't believe you.

I also don't believe they will make a loss. They had the margin on the car and since I purchased there was a £10k price increase.

I don't follow how anyone can possibly game the system.

The car must have faults. If more than a month has past those faults must reoccur. Why would a new premium product have recurring faults? I don't buy the complexity argument. The turbo s has been around for 3 (4?) years and is a mass production vehicle from a major manufacturer sold at a massive premium. The kit on it is pretty much the same as all the other 992 either in base form or an option.

I have had all sorts of cars spanning 30 years and the only car that ever gave me issues was a high miles merc SLK with a dodgy gearbox. It was High miles and stuff happens.

You are welcome to your point of view but pushing lemons onto consumers is not in anyones interest.

Edited by Jeremy-75qq8 on Friday 26th April 06:48

FYI. As soon as you report the fault. The timer stops on the 30 day rejection period and then restarts once the car has been returned to stop vendors from dragging their feet. If you report a fault on day 29 you then have an additional 7 days after its fixed to confirm the fault has been rectified.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I sort of knew this ( ish ) as the dealer did state the clock had stopped but I did not know that was in the legislation nor about the 7 days.

I rather assumed the dealer was doing this off their own back ( it was in writing ) but useful to know thank you ( I hope however not to need the use the legislation again !)

[robj4]

maz8062 said:

For the consumer this is a great law, but it is there to protect consumers

Just in case you were referring to me as well, the distance selling rules were brought in exactly to protect people who find themselves sold something tat was not as described. Without these protections the consumer would be by far the one who is conned out of their money, not the supplying company.

I'm not going to bore everyone with the details, the two cars I bought, for cash, were both on the understanding that if they were not exactly as described I would be within my rights to obtain a refund. The hassle in cancelling insurance, two wasted work days etc cost me 5 figures so I doubt many people do this as a method of obtaining cheap motoring.

[Muzzer79]

maz8062 said:

bennno said:

Thread has been informative

Now googling supercar with dodgy build quality that means I can tool round for a few months in it at 45p mile and reject…..

Maserati mc20 must be a good gamble shout…. Or an Artura.

Indeed. But you have to be able to front the cash up front as taking the car out on finance may mean that the finance company insist that you give the dealer more time to sort out the issue before they agree to cancel the debt.

Those championing this approach are being shortsighted in my view. Someone has to pay for this one way or the other. The op has probably enjoyed cars in excess of £100k (in depreciation terms) and only had to pay peanuts for the privilege. Add in the warranty work for his Aston and it’s probably nearer £120k. Who pays for that? Someone has to pay.

For the consumer this is a great law, but it is there to protect consumers not to be exploited by those with the means and wherewithal to play the system. It will also ultimately cost the consumer more because corporates do not like losing money, they’ll go bust otherwise.

I work in finance. I also take a puritanical view on these types of things. If one buys something; goods, services, and uses that product, it has to be paid for. If you use it, enjoy it, bask in it, pay for it. If you buy a car and drive it for 6 months and 2500 miles and lose faith in it because it is unreliable and you want out, pay for your use of it. No, not at 45p per mile when the car has lost £50k as a result of your use - pay for your use of it. That is how things typically work in advance societies.

This thread has shown that the op is not the only one that has rejected cars for their money back. Personally I think this is a slippery slope and I hope a better way can be found for folk to enjoy these cars without someone having to lose a shed load of cash.

Just my view folks - don’t attack me.

If the car were being returned simply because the OP didn't like it - buyer's remorse if you will - I'd agree with you.

However, look at it from his perspective.

£200k on a car. £200k - that's a house in a lot of areas in this country.

£200k and it doesn't work properly. It's been returned and fixed, but then the problem re-appears.

The OP now has a choice - have faith in Porsche that they will fix it on another attempt(s) or return it having lost faith. With 200 grand on the line, I can see why he would choose the latter.

Why should he take a 50 grand hit on it because it doesn't work properly? He's not returning it because he doesn't like it, he's returning it because it doesn't work properly.

If the manufacturer doesn't want to stomach the cost of cars like this being returned, they need to improve their quality control. Especially at this price point.

[nickfrog]

Yeah but he has done it already on a Macca 6 years ago, and those were supremely reliable then.

He is a serial rejector defrauding honest people and traders with the utmost integrity like a Porsche dealer and he should be blacklisted.

He knew the T was going to have a problem so got himself 2500 miles on the cheap with no hassle, risk or uncertainty.

In a word, the bd.

[Blu3R]

nickfrog said:

Yeah but he has done it already on a Macca 6 years ago, and those were supremely reliable then.

He is a serial rejector defrauding honest people and traders with the utmost integrity like a Porsche dealer and he should be blacklisted.

He knew the T was going to have a problem so got himself 2500 miles on the cheap with no hassle, risk or uncertainty.

In a word, the bd.

I couldn't disagree more with you if I tried. Whether the OP 'has done this before' or not is irrelevant. He's spent money on a brand new product and it hasn't performed. It's that simple. Whether it's a small problem or a large one, the fact is it's gone wrong, twice, within 6 months.
I commented a few days ago saying that initially I thought he was being harsh but having given it some thought and putting myself in his shoes, I'd be doing the same - except I'd be wanting a replacement rather than a refund.

[maz8062]

Blu3R said:

nickfrog said:

Yeah but he has done it already on a Macca 6 years ago, and those were supremely reliable then.

He is a serial rejector defrauding honest people and traders with the utmost integrity like a Porsche dealer and he should be blacklisted.

He knew the T was going to have a problem so got himself 2500 miles on the cheap with no hassle, risk or uncertainty.

In a word, the bd.

I couldn't disagree more with you if I tried. Whether the OP 'has done this before' or not is irrelevant. He's spent money on a brand new product and it hasn't performed. It's that simple. Whether it's a small problem or a large one, the fact is it's gone wrong, twice, within 6 months.
I commented a few days ago saying that initially I thought he was being harsh but having given it some thought and putting myself in his shoes, I'd be doing the same - except I'd be wanting a replacement rather than a refund.

Nick is being sarcastic, mate. He’s always in the opposite corner in debates with me.

No, my view is that if one is spending £200k on a car one would normally carry out due diligence, potential faults, depreciation, performance, reviews etc. Ordinarily one could also rely on the warranty of the car - if something goes wrong, will the dealer cover it and for how long? Would I be able to extend the warranty if needs be? If once that’s all covered and you want the car, you buy it. Now it seems that folk can also drive the car, thrash it, poke it, be sick in it and give it back for a full refund after 6 months, less 45p per mile for use. Why doesn’t everyone do that?

What I like about the internet is that you can never win an argument - we all have different views based on our values, experiences, upbringing etc. Forums are places where we can all have views - some agree others don’t, but it really doesn’t matter.

[InitialDave]

Blu3R said:

I couldn't disagree more with you if I tried. Whether the OP 'has done this before' or not is irrelevant.

Nick frog is clearly bring sarcastic and mocking that "he's gaming the system" stance.

Quite rightly, too.

£200k is a hell if a stake to gamble on the idea you might be able to "game the system" when you might get a duff one, that they might not fix properly, and they might play ball with you initiating a rejection (rather than becoming awkward and obstructive to try and avoid you doing so).

If you're in a position to drop £200k on what is effectively a toy, you probably know better ways to manage your financial risks than hoping you can do this.

Also, while I'm completely supportive of the OP here, I've done the opposite myself, bought a car that's then gone wrong and left me a chunky bill, but paid it and kept it even though my consumer rights would have allowed me to push back on the seller (we're talking like a tenth of the kind of money the OP is spending, though!)

[maz8062]

Blu3R said:

nickfrog said:

Yeah but he has done it already on a Macca 6 years ago, and those were supremely reliable then.

He is a serial rejector defrauding honest people and traders with the utmost integrity like a Porsche dealer and he should be blacklisted.

He knew the T was going to have a problem so got himself 2500 miles on the cheap with no hassle, risk or uncertainty.

In a word, the bd.

I couldn't disagree more with you if I tried. Whether the OP 'has done this before' or not is irrelevant. He's spent money on a brand new product and it hasn't performed. It's that simple. Whether it's a small problem or a large one, the fact is it's gone wrong, twice, within 6 months.
I commented a few days ago saying that initially I thought he was being harsh but having given it some thought and putting myself in his shoes, I'd be doing the same - except I'd be wanting a replacement rather than a refund.

Nick is being sarcastic, mate. He’s always in the opposite corner in debates with me.

No, my view is that if one is spending £200k on a car one would normally carry out due diligence, potential faults, depreciation, performance, reviews etc. Ordinarily one could also rely on the warranty of the car - if something goes wrong, will the dealer cover it and for how long? Would I be able to extend the warranty if needs be? If once that’s all covered and you want the car, you buy it. Now it seems that folk can also drive the car, thrash it, poke it, be sick in it and give it back for a full refund after 6 months, less 45p per mile for use. Why doesn’t everyone do that?

What I like about the internet is that you can never win an argument - we all have different views based on our values, experiences, upbringing etc. Forums are places where we can all have views - some agree others don’t, but it really doesn’t matter.

[Wills2]

Yours isn't an argument as much as a strange narrative you've plucked out of thin air, cars go wrong, lemons get built and people reject them it's that simple, no matter what you choose to make up.