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

[hairyben]

Rejecting the whole car would be like rejecting a fitted kitchen because the dishwasher doesn't work; you'd just fix/replace the item and try to pass the cost on.

I'd get a quote for a fitted aftermarket system from pioneer or alpine etc of the right spec and offer legal action based on that figure, you might find the dealer wants to fit whatever this upgrade is.

[was8v]

hairyben said:

Rejecting the whole car would be like rejecting a fitted kitchen because the dishwasher doesn't work; you'd just fix/replace the item and try to pass the cost on.

I'd get a quote for a fitted aftermarket system from pioneer or alpine etc of the right spec and offer legal action based on that figure, you might find the dealer wants to fit whatever this upgrade is.

Ah perhaps this has legs.

I could find a headunit that does nav via a smartphone link with DAB, that is essentially the spec originally purchased.

Get a price for fitting and hope they capitulate. Otherwise go ahead have it fitted and go to the small claims court.

However if I did have an aftermarket unit fitted, how would you operate the tyre pressure monitoring system? Distance to empty? time until next service? all that stuff.

[barryrs]

was8v said:

They are free to sub contract someone else to have a go if they like.

Sometimes people have to make a little effort on their part!

[Integroo]

was8v said:

Butter Face said:

But

It's

Not

Broken

They can probably show it working with some device, so it's a compatiblity issue not a fault with the system.

You sound like a "customer care agent".

Regardless - it doesn't work, and they haven't demonstrated it working with any device, all the ones they tried didn't work.

Buyer has paid for an item and should be supplied an item that does work or be refunded.

Edited by was8v on Wednesday 12th July 09:44

Yes, fine. If it was material to the buyer, the buyer could have rejected - after two weeks. Not after two years!

[essayer]

MirrorLink ?

[speedyman]

This post is no different to my car wont start.
We need the details to try to solve it. Unless the op names the vehicle type I suggest nobody replies to his post anymore. Its impossible to help solve a technical problem without the data.

[was8v]

speedyman said:

This post is no different to my car wont start.
We need the details to try to solve it. Unless the op names the vehicle type I suggest nobody replies to his post anymore. Its impossible to help solve a technical problem without the data.

I'm not asking for help to resolve the technical issue. The manufacturer can't even do that.

They only made this unit for a couple of months in a brand new vehicle before changing production to a very similar one that does work.

They know they don't work, it was suggested to replace the system like for like with a new one but they said the replacement would behave in exactly the same way.

---

Everyone saying we can't expect anything after 2 years - well why did they take it in for evaluation promising to fix it? Does that not create an expectation?

They requested the car for evaluation, it was not offered. They came to pick it up and left a courtesy car.

I was surprised bothered to waste resources doing that tbh, given how documented the issue is on owners forums.

[Integroo]

was8v said:

speedyman said:

This post is no different to my car wont start.
We need the details to try to solve it. Unless the op names the vehicle type I suggest nobody replies to his post anymore. Its impossible to help solve a technical problem without the data.

I'm not asking for help to resolve the technical issue. The manufacturer can't even do that.

They only made this unit for a couple of months in a brand new vehicle before changing production to a very similar one that does work.

They know they don't work, it was suggested to replace the system like for like with a new one but they said the replacement would behave in exactly the same way.

---

Everyone saying we can't expect anything after 2 years - well why did they take it in for evaluation promising to fix it? Does that not create an expectation?

They requested the car for evaluation, it was not offered. They came to pick it up and left a courtesy car.

I was surprised bothered to waste resources doing that tbh, given how documented the issue is on owners forums.

We are saying you can't reject it after two years, not that you can't expect them to get it sorted.

[was8v]

Integroo said:

We are saying you can't reject it after two years, not that you can't expect them to get it sorted.

OK I understand that rejection would not likely be accepted or even possible, I didn't ever really think it would be - but starting proceeding may make them "fix" it.

They are refusing to fix it FOC.

What other mechanism is there available to consumers to persuade them to change their minds?

[TooMany2cvs]

was8v said:

OK I understand that rejection would not likely be accepted or even possible, I didn't ever really think it would be - but starting proceeding may make them "fix" it.

They are refusing to fix it FOC.

What other mechanism is there available to consumers to persuade them to change their minds?

Where a fault can't be fixed, then the legal restitution is to return the car for a refund - which would make allowance of use and wear/tear. Basically, the most that would happen is that the dealer would be ordered to buy it back for the current value (without this issue). Well, you can sell it to them without a court getting involved, since this issue won't affect the trade-in value.

You can't do anything legal anyway - you aren't part of the contract. The purchaser would have to undertake any legal action themselves. Is this them pushing, or you pushing?

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 12th July 10:48

[Sheepshanks]

CraigyMc said:

I rejected a 23 month old TV last week for a full refund over a fault it had had since it was delivered.

What was the fault - was it something that stopped it functioning as a TV, or aproblem with, say, an AV input?


I must say though it's always baffled me why cars seem to be treated differently to other items. Get a washing machine that fails within 5 years and people say SOGA or whatever should provide a free repair. Try that with a car.

[Integroo]

TooMany2cvs said:

was8v said:

OK I understand that rejection would not likely be accepted or even possible, I didn't ever really think it would be - but starting proceeding may make them "fix" it.

They are refusing to fix it FOC.

What other mechanism is there available to consumers to persuade them to change their minds?

Where a fault can't be fixed, then the legal restitution is to return the car for a refund - which would make allowance of use and wear/tear. Basically, the most that would happen is that the dealer would be ordered to buy it back for the current value. Well, you can sell it to them without a court getting involved, since this issue won't affect the trade-in value.

You can't do anything legal anyway - you aren't part of the contract. The purchaser would have to undertake any legal action themselves. Is this them pushing, or you pushing?

This isn't true. The legal restitution would be for the purchaser to be compensated for the loss suffered i.e. the costs of installing an aftermarket system.

[daemon]

Sheepshanks said:

CraigyMc said:

I rejected a 23 month old TV last week for a full refund over a fault it had had since it was delivered.

What was the fault - was it something that stopped it functioning as a TV, or aproblem with, say, an AV input?


I must say though it's always baffled me why cars seem to be treated differently to other items. Get a washing machine that fails within 5 years and people say SOGA or whatever should provide a free repair. Try that with a car.

Lower priced consumables at a few hundred £ theres probably an element of the manufacturer wanting to protect reputation / goodwill and theres not a big pile of money involved.

Also a washing machine not washing is a clear fault. a lot of "faults" on a used car arent - they're wear and tear related OR have been caused by the use / misuse of the car. Also rolling back a £20,000+ deal is painful for all concerned.

The manufacturer here should absolutely be providing a free repair / resolution. No question. Getting a full refund because of this and after 2 years based on rejecting the car is "unlikely" to say the least.

I've had "similar" in the past, and managed to get a "preferential" deal done on another car. Manufacturer / dealer making a contribution over and above the market value of my then used car / price of new car. Although thats all subject to the caveat that theres no doubt smoke and mirrors being used there so nobodys really out much money but they all get to look like heroes (in there eyes anyway)

[TooMany2cvs]

Integroo said:

TooMany2cvs said:

was8v said:

OK I understand that rejection would not likely be accepted or even possible, I didn't ever really think it would be - but starting proceeding may make them "fix" it.

They are refusing to fix it FOC.

What other mechanism is there available to consumers to persuade them to change their minds?

Where a fault can't be fixed, then the legal restitution is to return the car for a refund - which would make allowance of use and wear/tear. Basically, the most that would happen is that the dealer would be ordered to buy it back for the current value. Well, you can sell it to them without a court getting involved, since this issue won't affect the trade-in value.

You can't do anything legal anyway - you aren't part of the contract. The purchaser would have to undertake any legal action themselves. Is this them pushing, or you pushing?

This isn't true. The legal restitution would be for the purchaser to be compensated for the loss suffered i.e. the costs of installing an aftermarket system.

Is that really within CRA2015...? Come to that, is that really a financial loss, because the value of the vehicle has not been affected - is that not betterment, because the aftermarket system is portable to a replacement vehicle.

B'sides, the dealer has already offered an aftermarket navigation system, and that's been rejected.

[was8v]

There has been no financial loss whatsoever until the system is replaced with one which does work. Someone will have to pay for that.

The purchaser does not want money or betterment. They want working integrated sat nav.

I think the motor ombudsman is my final port of call, to see (and accept) what their professional adjudicators say. I hope they find it of interest.

[superlightr]

was8v said:

There has been no financial loss whatsoever until the system is replaced with one which does work. Someone will have to pay for that.

The purchaser does not want money or betterment. They want working integrated sat nav.

I think the motor ombudsman is my final port of call, to see (and accept) what their professional adjudicators say. I hope they find it of interest.

ffs please help us out with the make and type of car.

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?!

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.

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?

We owned a golf and had a few issues which we resolved but if you don't say what type of car then that's just daft.

[Integroo]

TooMany2cvs said:

Integroo said:

TooMany2cvs said:

was8v said:

OK I understand that rejection would not likely be accepted or even possible, I didn't ever really think it would be - but starting proceeding may make them "fix" it.

They are refusing to fix it FOC.

What other mechanism is there available to consumers to persuade them to change their minds?

Where a fault can't be fixed, then the legal restitution is to return the car for a refund - which would make allowance of use and wear/tear. Basically, the most that would happen is that the dealer would be ordered to buy it back for the current value. Well, you can sell it to them without a court getting involved, since this issue won't affect the trade-in value.

You can't do anything legal anyway - you aren't part of the contract. The purchaser would have to undertake any legal action themselves. Is this them pushing, or you pushing?

This isn't true. The legal restitution would be for the purchaser to be compensated for the loss suffered i.e. the costs of installing an aftermarket system.

Is that really within CRA2015...? Come to that, is that really a financial loss, because the value of the vehicle has not been affected - is that not betterment, because the aftermarket system is portable to a replacement vehicle.

B'sides, the dealer has already offered an aftermarket navigation system, and that's been rejected.

In order to get to the bottom of this, why don't we look at the terms of the CRA 2015.

CRA2015, s.19 - consumer's right to enforce terms about goods, referencing various things including the goods being as described under s.10. s.19(3) - if the goods do not conform to the contract .... the consumer's rights (and the provisions about them and when they are available) are - (a) the short-term right to reject (sections 20 and 22); (b) the right to repair or replacement (section 23); and (c) the right to a price reduction or the final right to reject (sections 20 and 24).

(a) The short-term right to reject can only be exercised within thirty days of purchase, so doesn't apply.

(b) The right to repair or replacement is a right to require the trader to repair or replace the goods, within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and at the cost of the trader. However, if repair or replacement is (a) impossible or (b) disproportionate compared to the other of those remedies, it cannot be ordered. A remedy is disproportionate if it imposes costs on the trader which are unreasonable, taking into account (a) the value of the goods would have if they conformed to the contract, (b) the significance of the lack of conformity, and (c) whether the other remedy could be effected without significant inconvenience to the consumer. I think it is clear that a full refund on a two year old car would be disproportionate given these definitions. The purchaser however has clearly not had this dealt with in a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience - so would be able to claim compensation for this loss (if it can be quantified).

(c) Right to price reduction or final right to reject. The right to a price reduction or the final right to reject exists where (a) after one repair or one replacement, the goods do not conform, (b) the trader cannot repair or replace due to it being either impossible or disproportionate, or (c) the consumer has required the trader to repair or replace, but the trader is in breach of the requirement to do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience.

So I think the remedy in (c) is the most appropriate, and is available to our purchaser here. This is subject to s.24(8) - if the consumer exercises the final right to reject, any refund to the consumer may be reduced by a deduction for use, to take account of the use the consumer has had of the goods in the period since they were delivered.

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.

Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 12th July 11:33

Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 12th July 11:34

[CraigyMc]

Sheepshanks said:

CraigyMc said:

I rejected a 23 month old TV last week for a full refund over a fault it had had since it was delivered.

What was the fault - was it something that stopped it functioning as a TV, or a problem with, say, an AV input?

I must say though it's always baffled me why cars seem to be treated differently to other items. Get a washing machine that fails within 5 years and people say SOGA or whatever should provide a free repair. Try that with a car.

Quite offtopic this, but as you've asked -

It was a fault with an LG smart TV's smart features - the remote would freeze for 10-20 seconds every few minutes then start working again.
I tried a replacement remote [they are a standard LG part, bought separately for about £34], which had the same behaviour (proving that the TV main unit itself was at fault). I've sent both the replacement remote and the TV itself back for full refunds.

The smart features (eg. youtube) problem wasn't a big deal for the first year and a half or so because during that time I mostly used the thing simply as a flat panel to display whatever my computer was showing - the remote was only used for on/off and volume controls. I changed how I used it and voila, pain in the ass, so I decided to get it fixed or replaced.

To their credit, after the initial "go and speak to the manufacturer" I had from their helpdesk, the rest of the refund process has been quite slick.

Edited to add, as this isn't a name and shame - TV was a 49" 4K LG 770V, cost initially was £769 and the retailer is Amazon.

Edited by CraigyMc on Wednesday 12th July 11:35

[Integroo]

CraigyMc said:

Sheepshanks said:

CraigyMc said:

I rejected a 23 month old TV last week for a full refund over a fault it had had since it was delivered.

What was the fault - was it something that stopped it functioning as a TV, or a problem with, say, an AV input?

I must say though it's always baffled me why cars seem to be treated differently to other items. Get a washing machine that fails within 5 years and people say SOGA or whatever should provide a free repair. Try that with a car.

Quite offtopic this, but as you've asked -

It was a fault with an LG smart TV's smart features - the remote would freeze for 10-20 seconds every few minutes then start working again.
I tried a replacement remote [they are a standard LG part, bought separately for about £34], which had the same behaviour (proving that the TV main unit itself was at fault). I've sent both the replacement remote and the TV itself back for full refunds.

The smart features (eg. youtube) problem wasn't a big deal for the first year and a half or so because during that time I mostly used the thing simply as a flat panel to display whatever my computer was showing - the remote was only used for on/off and volume controls. I changed how I used it and voila, pain in the ass, so I decided to get it fixed or replaced.

To their credit, after the initial "go and speak to the manufacturer" I had from their helpdesk, the rest of the refund process has been quite slick.

Edited to add, as this isn't a name and shame - TV was a 49" 4K LG 770V, cost initially was £769 and the retailer is Amazon.

Edited by CraigyMc on Wednesday 12th July 11:35

You are in luck, considering you could get a 49" 4k LG for much less than £769 today!

[was8v]

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?!

Correct

superlightr 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.

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.