Rejecting a new car after 2 years, fault present all this
Discussion
Integroo said:
You are in luck, considering you could get a 49" 4k LG for much less than £769 today!
Yup. They are selling the same model for precisely £225 less than I bought it for in the first place.I did honestly try to deal with this without the cost to the retailer that I know they've incurred - the step with trying a separate remote was actually my idea, instead of just returning it straight away which is what they offered.
Having sent the thing away and not really noticed it's gone, I am not entirely sure I'll replace it immediately anyway. I've already sworn if/when I do get another, it won't be the same LG WebOS thing as even when it's working, it is very slow to boot up from cold and a bit clunky.
was8v said:
superlightr said:
If ive read your posts correctly - So they bought a car without an integrated sat nav - relying on the dealer saying their phone will connect to the car so that they can use google maps and directions that way. The phone wont connect. Other phone wont connect. Yes?!
Correctsuperlightr said:
You mention that they now want an integrated sat nav? but that's not what they bought is it because they didn't want to pay the extra for that.
No. Ideally they want what they paid for. An integrated system that shows the nav from a smart phone on the built in screen in the car. That way the maps are always up to date and there is decent live traffic - way better than a quickly outdated integrated sat nav.It is the dealer / mfr who offered integrated sat nav accessory at additional cost - the have offered this for free to other purchasers. They would accept this FOC as a resolution if the dealer cannot give them what they paid for.
superlightr said:
Can the phone not connect to google maps now and be used in the car as a stand alone item? Help me understand the issue - What else does the phone do if its connected to the car apart from using the car speakers?
What does the car not do if its not connected to the phone?
Sure it can, on a tiny screen held up by a dodgy plastic mount with a wire trailing across the dash. You have to interact with the phone to change the nav - something which will land you with a fine and points if spotted by the Police.What does the car not do if its not connected to the phone?
If you plug a "compatible" phone into the car (it has to be hard wired to connect to screen), the screen on the car just scrolls around and drops out.
If the car is not connected to a phone it plays the radio, cds, mp3s, allows you to access tyre pressure monitoring, miles to next service etc etc.
Bluetooth calls can be made and received perfectly.
Again I'll re-iterate: Multiple phones on the list have been tried, and multiple cars with a similar build date have been tried. After a very short period they stopped supplying this unit in their cars.
Though, to note, you can't be done for interacting with a mobile phone set into a mount - the offence is for "using a hand-held mobile device", which a device in a mount is not (despite what any police officer may tell you).
Integroo said:
....
So actually, I doff my hat, and think that you are correct. The legal remedy here is the final right to reject, subject to a deduction for use, which basically probably amounts to buying the car back for current market value.
EDIT: This is all predicated on the purchaser proving that s.11 has been breached, i.e. that the goods were not as described, i.e. that he was told his phone would connect and it does not. It would also have to be considered material i.e. he made it clear this was important to him. You can't reject for something minor i.e. being told your car was Orchid Pearl White and in fact it is Ivory White or something. It would have to relate to the "main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium of communication and to the goods or services" in line with Schedule 1 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which may be difficult to prove in the instance of a sat nav system which exists but doesn't connect to your phone, though it may be clear from ongoing communication on the matter.
I have sight of an internal memo to dealers, showing the very first version of a compatibility list showing 4 phones from 2 months after the car was purchased.So actually, I doff my hat, and think that you are correct. The legal remedy here is the final right to reject, subject to a deduction for use, which basically probably amounts to buying the car back for current market value.
EDIT: This is all predicated on the purchaser proving that s.11 has been breached, i.e. that the goods were not as described, i.e. that he was told his phone would connect and it does not. It would also have to be considered material i.e. he made it clear this was important to him. You can't reject for something minor i.e. being told your car was Orchid Pearl White and in fact it is Ivory White or something. It would have to relate to the "main characteristics of the goods or services, to the extent appropriate to the medium of communication and to the goods or services" in line with Schedule 1 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which may be difficult to prove in the instance of a sat nav system which exists but doesn't connect to your phone, though it may be clear from ongoing communication on the matter.
The emergence of the list at this time shows that the dealer did not know what phones would be compatible before that date. Therefore the dealer should not have been selling the system as compatible with anything really!
Its moot anyway as none of the phones on this list we or the dealer has tried work with the system.
Any legal eagle think that rather than the CCR route, there is a warranty route - i.e. the system is not working right now and should be fixed.
If the parking sensors weren't working, they would surely just replace them with some that do work under the warranty.....?
Integroo said:
Look at the advice above on the CRA2015, it sets out your remedies.
OK this looks like a long struggle, however surely they would need to refund the "retail" value of the vehicle - i.e. what they have similar vehicles advertised at, rather than any trade or trade-in valuation.Starting down this route may force them to capitulate and choose the cheaper acceptable remedy, as really it is a great car in all other respects.
I think i will start with the ombudsman, as that is free to consumers.
was8v said:
Integroo said:
Look at the advice above on the CRA2015, it sets out your remedies.
OK this looks like a long struggle, however surely they would need to refund the "retail" value of the vehicle - i.e. what they have similar vehicles advertised at, rather than any trade or trade-in valuation.Starting down this route may force them to capitulate and choose the cheaper acceptable remedy, as really it is a great car in all other respects.
was8v said:
Sure it can, on a tiny screen held up by a dodgy plastic mount with a wire trailing across the dash. You have to interact with the phone to change the nav - something which will land you with a fine and points if spotted by the Police.
Not if the phone's in a holder, any more than using the dash screen would. The offence is hand-held...Huntsman said:
Does anyone really think a car that won't connect to a smart phone is not fit for purpose? I'm mean really?
Surely it depends on why you bought the car, and what the dealer said it will do.If you wanted a particular feature and the dealer says its got it, then it turns out it doesn't, then the dealer should rectify the issue one way or another.
OP
Firstly name the car - if this a common fault there's absolutely no risk to Haymarket.
Ultimately a small claims court claim for the loss of amenity and value should be easily winnable.p - and you should with their written permission be able to do this on behalf of your relative 2cvs is wrong again.
Bad pun time - you are in the driving seat here. You have their courtesy car just refuse to give it back until thetpy agree to repair, replace or upgrade to something that works. If they consider it betterment then tough your relative has not had the benefit of the working system for two years! It will be costing them to supply you the courtesy car the longer you keep it the more it will cause them an issue. They should cave before you do. Think how much a PCP contract on the courtesy car would cost - £200 a month?? They can't go on bearing that cost and it's an inconvenience too as that car could be being used by other customers in need. Don't let them have it back.
Make sure they aren't using your relatives car to run around in too. Record the mileage with photo date and write an email stating they do not have your permission to drive it under threat of a TWOC charge.
Do you think there's a risk they might come to recover their car? Garage it if possible or put it beyond their reach.
Firstly name the car - if this a common fault there's absolutely no risk to Haymarket.
Ultimately a small claims court claim for the loss of amenity and value should be easily winnable.p - and you should with their written permission be able to do this on behalf of your relative 2cvs is wrong again.
Bad pun time - you are in the driving seat here. You have their courtesy car just refuse to give it back until thetpy agree to repair, replace or upgrade to something that works. If they consider it betterment then tough your relative has not had the benefit of the working system for two years! It will be costing them to supply you the courtesy car the longer you keep it the more it will cause them an issue. They should cave before you do. Think how much a PCP contract on the courtesy car would cost - £200 a month?? They can't go on bearing that cost and it's an inconvenience too as that car could be being used by other customers in need. Don't let them have it back.
Make sure they aren't using your relatives car to run around in too. Record the mileage with photo date and write an email stating they do not have your permission to drive it under threat of a TWOC charge.
Do you think there's a risk they might come to recover their car? Garage it if possible or put it beyond their reach.
elanfan said:
OP
Firstly name the car - if this a common fault there's absolutely no risk to Haymarket.
Ultimately a small claims court claim for the loss of amenity and value should be easily winnable.p - and you should with their written permission be able to do this on behalf of your relative 2cvs is wrong again.
Bad pun time - you are in the driving seat here. You have their courtesy car just refuse to give it back until thetpy agree to repair, replace or upgrade to something that works. If they consider it betterment then tough your relative has not had the benefit of the working system for two years! It will be costing them to supply you the courtesy car the longer you keep it the more it will cause them an issue. They should cave before you do. Think how much a PCP contract on the courtesy car would cost - £200 a month?? They can't go on bearing that cost and it's an inconvenience too as that car could be being used by other customers in need. Don't let them have it back.
Make sure they aren't using your relatives car to run around in too. Record the mileage with photo date and write an email stating they do not have your permission to drive it under threat of a TWOC charge.
Do you think there's a risk they might come to recover their car? Garage it if possible or put it beyond their reach.
I mean, you can tell him what you want the law to be, but why not just look up at the remedies under the CRA 2015? Quantifying 'loss of amenity' or 'value' isn't exactly easy in this circumstance, and the court would expect you to have exhausted your rights under the CRA 2015. Refusing to return a courtesy car is terrible advice. Firstly name the car - if this a common fault there's absolutely no risk to Haymarket.
Ultimately a small claims court claim for the loss of amenity and value should be easily winnable.p - and you should with their written permission be able to do this on behalf of your relative 2cvs is wrong again.
Bad pun time - you are in the driving seat here. You have their courtesy car just refuse to give it back until thetpy agree to repair, replace or upgrade to something that works. If they consider it betterment then tough your relative has not had the benefit of the working system for two years! It will be costing them to supply you the courtesy car the longer you keep it the more it will cause them an issue. They should cave before you do. Think how much a PCP contract on the courtesy car would cost - £200 a month?? They can't go on bearing that cost and it's an inconvenience too as that car could be being used by other customers in need. Don't let them have it back.
Make sure they aren't using your relatives car to run around in too. Record the mileage with photo date and write an email stating they do not have your permission to drive it under threat of a TWOC charge.
Do you think there's a risk they might come to recover their car? Garage it if possible or put it beyond their reach.
was8v said:
Any legal eagle think that rather than the CCR route, there is a warranty route - i.e. the system is not working right now and should be fixed.
If the parking sensors weren't working, they would surely just replace them with some that do work under the warranty.....?
IANAL, but that is not the purpose of a warranty. The purpose of a warranty is to cover you against manufacturing defects. The head unit does not do what you/your friend want it to do, nor what you are told it would do - but the reasons for that are nothing to do with manufacturing issues. Your remedy is under the CRA, as has already been pointed out on several occasions.If the parking sensors weren't working, they would surely just replace them with some that do work under the warranty.....?
elanfan said:
Sorry my Why? was aimed at intergroo. Why is keeping the courtesy car bad advice?
Your car has a problem they've supplied a courtesy car until the problem is rectified, they haven't rectified. You keep the car what's the problem?
You don't have a legal right to keep their courtesy car simply because you feel wronged by some other aspect of your dealings with them. They are not obliged to supply you a courtesy car (though you could arguably claim for the cost of one if that was a genuine loss). They may let you keep it, but if they demand it back, you cannot simply refuse Your car has a problem they've supplied a courtesy car until the problem is rectified, they haven't rectified. You keep the car what's the problem?
Vaud said:
elanfan said:
Sorry my Why? was aimed at intergroo. Why is keeping the courtesy car bad advice?
Your car has a problem they've supplied a courtesy car until the problem is rectified, they haven't rectified. You keep the car what's the problem?
Given you don't know which law should apply (based on purchase date), can I suggest that you maybe shouldn't be giving advice on retaining a courtesy car?Your car has a problem they've supplied a courtesy car until the problem is rectified, they haven't rectified. You keep the car what's the problem?
Intergroo - yes I agree with what you say and understand it. The reality is that the OP could make it awkward and expensive for the garage such that the cheaper option would be to do the upgrade. It's not that much cost to them and they'd probably get it back from VW? anyway.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff