Rejecting a new car after 2 years, fault present all this

[anonymous-user]

I don't understand why, given the apparent importance of this feature to the customer, ("a primary deciding feature") the car wasn't rejected much earlier, despite promises to rectify. Who would wait 2 years to have a "primary deciding feature" provided?

Btw with due respect....

'To them it is a major safety feature - allowing them to concentrate on driving rather than navigating. And it had to be integrated, nobody likes trailing wires or worrying if the stick on unit will get nicked.'

.....is bks.

The 'illness' wouldn't mean the car is now superfluous, would it by any chance?

[anonymous-user]

Maybe a 'downgrade' would be better:

[TooMany2cvs]

REALIST123 said:

Btw with due respect....

'To them it is a major safety feature - allowing them to concentrate on driving rather than navigating. And it had to be integrated, nobody likes trailing wires or worrying if the stick on unit will get nicked.'

.....is bks.

The 'illness' wouldn't mean the car is now superfluous, would it by any chance?

Don't forget the car only has 7k miles on it now. I wonder how many times it's been places that the driver doesn't know like the back of their hand?

[Shambler]

Write to Corbyn and Abbot. Sounds like the owners are the types that end up in a river because the sat nav said so.

[Integroo]

If you wanted to reject it, you should have rejected it at a long time ago. Afraid you cannot reject two years after the fact.

[OverSteery]

You need to show that the car isn't fit for purpose. Surely the very fact that you have used it for 2 years would suggest that it IS fit for purpose.

You may have a breach of contract with the dealer, but you said he has made a reasonable offer to fit an after market device. that would cover his obligations, I would think

Life is so terribly cruel, but I really would move one.

[Cherrybusa]

was8v said:

I dunno. I once had a TV that the hdmi input broke on after 2 years. The tuner still worked.

The supplier sent me a new TV.

Is the law different because of the cost of a car vs the cost of a TV?

Or because it worked for 2 years and then broke, rather than not working from the start?

Because TVs etc are volume sales items where it is easier and cheaper for manufacturers to factor in replacement rather than repair, and take the hit. Its a percentages game and somewhat different to a car.

[Integroo]

Cherrybusa said:

was8v said:

I dunno. I once had a TV that the hdmi input broke on after 2 years. The tuner still worked.

The supplier sent me a new TV.

Is the law different because of the cost of a car vs the cost of a TV?

Or because it worked for 2 years and then broke, rather than not working from the start?

Because TVs etc are volume sales items where it is easier and cheaper for manufacturers to factor in replacement rather than repair, and take the hit. Its a percentages game and somewhat different to a car.

Also, just because they sent you a new television, doesn't mean they were obliged to. I imagine they just thought it was cheaper to keep you happy than to dispute it or to try and repair it, as mentioned. There is zero chance of rejecting a two year old car that has depreciated heavily, especially over something like a sat nav.

[drdino]

I seem to recall a similar topic here on PH about a new Audi (possibly the then-new TT) with connectivity issues with the recently released MMI system...

[was8v]

OverSteery said:

You need to show that the car isn't fit for purpose. Surely the very fact that you have used it for 2 years would suggest that it IS fit for purpose.

You may have a breach of contract with the dealer, but you said he has made a reasonable offer to fit an after market device. that would cover his obligations, I would think

Life is so terribly cruel, but I really would move one.

The integrated nav accessory was not at "reasonable cost", it was almost 10% of the whole purchase price of the vehicle. A tom tom type sat nav was offered FOC, but is not an acceptable solution.

If your FM radio was not working, would you accept a "warranty" fix that involved screwing a kitchen radio to your dash?

Edited by was8v on Wednesday 12th July 08:57

[daniel1920]

was8v said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Two pages in, and nobody's suggested changing the damn phone to one that's on the list?

Three from the list have been tried. Two by the dealer.

None worked.

There are 2 different issues here;

1) Owners phone isn't compatible
2) Compatible phones cannot connect to car.

Is #2 what the car is in the garage for at the moment? 2 years old so I assume a warranty, don't accept car back until #2 is sorted, then upgrade phone. See if they will contribute towards the price of a compatible one, even indirectly through free services.

Without writing that the dealer promised #1 it has no hope of going anywhere I would think

[Twig62]

was8v said:

Anyone got any constructive ideas of how I can motivate them to do something?

Or shall I just pay for the accessory unit to be fitted myself and tell the purchaser they "fixed" it so i can move on with my life.

Why would you be paying for the above if it's not your car ? I don't understand why you are talking in riddles. If you want help you need to be totally straight with all the facts.

[TooMany2cvs]

was8v said:

The integrated nav accessory was not at "reasonable cost", it was almost 10% of the whole purchase price of the vehicle.

You may have a case for a refund of the option cost - but what other functionality does it offer?

[was8v]

OverSteery said:

You need to show that the car isn't fit for purpose. Surely the very fact that you have used it for 2 years would suggest that it IS fit for purpose.

Hmmm.

The integrated nav hasn't been used at all because its never worked.

That part alone is not fit for purpose.

The owner believed the dealer when they kept saying "we are having some problems, there is a software fix coming".

I told them to stop with the BS and thats when the took the car in 3 weeks ago, themselves tested it and then admitted the system is not fit for purpose - they are now refusing to do anything about it.

[Vaud]

was8v said:

Vaud said:

Is the difference Primary function? The cars primary function is to allow you to drive from a to b? The TV is to watch something from various inputs.

Well I bought the TV to watch TV not a blu ray player. They still fixed it.

In this case when the purchaser bought the car, a primary deciding factor that swung it to that car was the amazing navigation provided by google maps via smartphone. To them it is a major safety feature - allowing them to concentrate on driving rather than navigating. And it had to be integrated, nobody likes trailing wires or worrying if the stick on unit will get nicked.

So yes the navigation is a primary function of the car to them.

No, wheels, brakes, steering, ABS are primary. Infotainment is secondary.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Have we really reached the point in evolution where a mobile phone is more important than a car?

[TooMany2cvs]

was8v said:

OverSteery said:

You need to show that the car isn't fit for purpose. Surely the very fact that you have used it for 2 years would suggest that it IS fit for purpose.

Hmmm.

The integrated nav hasn't been used at all because its never worked.

The integrated nav doesn't work AT ALL? Or one part of it - the mobile phone connection?

Without the phone, it has zero functionality - nav or anything else - at all?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 12th July 09:12

[xjay1337]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Have we really reached the point in evolution where a mobile phone is more important than a car?

I agree, totally stupid. OP must be on a wind-up, I'd hate to imagine what would happen if something actually important happened to the OP.

[Integroo]

was8v said:

OverSteery said:

You need to show that the car isn't fit for purpose. Surely the very fact that you have used it for 2 years would suggest that it IS fit for purpose.

Hmmm.

The integrated nav hasn't been used at all because its never worked.

That part alone is not fit for purpose.

The owner believed the dealer when they kept saying "we are having some problems, there is a software fix coming".

I told them to stop with the BS and thats when the took the car in 3 weeks ago, themselves tested it and then admitted the system is not fit for purpose - they are now refusing to do anything about it.

You should have rejected the car after three weeks when it wasn't fixed if it was that important to you. You must be having a laugh to think you can reject a two year old car that's depreciated heavily, surely?

[was8v]

daniel1920 said:

There are 2 different issues here;

1) Owners phone isn't compatible
2) Compatible phones cannot connect to car.

Is #2 what the car is in the garage for at the moment? 2 years old so I assume a warranty, don't accept car back until #2 is sorted, then upgrade phone. See if they will contribute towards the price of a compatible one, even indirectly through free services.

Without writing that the dealer promised #1 it has no hope of going anywhere I would think

yes, #2 is what the car is in for.

They have rung me every day for the last 4 or 5 asking for their courtesy car back.

I simply say: "not until you either a) fix the car so it is demonstrated working with phones on the compatibility list" (even though no such list existed at purchase and they know that) or b) provide some other integrated navigation solution"

They then mumble about that not being possible, and then say they will go and speak to someone more senior.

I know for a fact the cost price the dealer would pay for the accessory integrated nav is £250, because they let it slip. The manufacturer offered me this for close to 10% of vehicle cost.