992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject
Discussion
breadvan said:
It's an interesting subject.
Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
Anyone spending their money on a product deserves a basic level of reliability. There is no spirit of the law, why would you think that? Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
carlo996 said:
breadvan said:
It's an interesting subject.
Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
Anyone spending their money on a product deserves a basic level of reliability. There is no spirit of the law, why would you think that? Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
maz8062 said:
I think it’s a crazy law and open to abuse. The OP buys a car for £230k say - drives it for 6 month and 2500 miles - with a warranty, but hands it back and only has to pay £1125 (@45p per mile) or £187 per month for the enjoyment. Meanwhile the car is worth circa £170k.
That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
It’s the law, it’s irrelevant what anyone thinks. As for Porsche ‘losing’, they won’t, it’ll be fixed and sold, and the margins are likely huge anyway. Car salesman losing, DP, losing, what about the buyer. They are the important ones to be honest! That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
carlo996 said:
breadvan said:
It's an interesting subject.
Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
Anyone spending their money on a product deserves a basic level of reliability. Surely rejection isn't a reasonable outcome for ONE re-occurring fault. It may be the letter of the law but I don't think it's in the spirit of the law.
Imagine the carnage if everyone returned their cars in this scenario.
It's more about OPC inadequacies than the car/ brand.
Were talking about potentially one component failure. It's up to the OPC to effectively diagnose and rectify and to provide a satisfactory experience for the OP while it's done.
breadvan said:
Again, we're talking about 1 fault that's re-occurred once.
It's more about OPC inadequacies than the car/ brand.
Were talking about potentially one component failure. It's up to the OPC to effectively diagnose and rectify and to provide a satisfactory experience for the OP while it's done.
And whilst you have a point, it’s still the customer that suffers, and it’s Porsche’s name on the back. I’m surprised at the amount of people who have an issue with the OP’s response. It's more about OPC inadequacies than the car/ brand.
Were talking about potentially one component failure. It's up to the OPC to effectively diagnose and rectify and to provide a satisfactory experience for the OP while it's done.
maz8062 said:
I think it’s a crazy law and open to abuse. The OP buys a car for £230k say - drives it for 6 month and 2500 miles - with a warranty, but hands it back and only has to pay £1125 (@45p per mile) or £187 per month for the enjoyment. Meanwhile the car is worth circa £170k.
That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
How is the law open to abuse?That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
So the OP expects to pay 45p per mile for the use of a 992TT?
I'll happily borrow their next new Porsche for the next 2,000 miles at 45p per mile please.
The 45p HMRC rate is capped deliberately low to stop people economically expensing anything other than rep-mobiles. It bears no relation to the true value derived from driving 2k miles in a £200k supercar.
I'll happily borrow their next new Porsche for the next 2,000 miles at 45p per mile please.
The 45p HMRC rate is capped deliberately low to stop people economically expensing anything other than rep-mobiles. It bears no relation to the true value derived from driving 2k miles in a £200k supercar.
It’s not as easy as some posters are suggesting and the question arises of should the consumer accept the risk for an inherent defect?
If a vehicle ticks the box for being unsatisfactory quality (it cannot be something trivial) in the first 30 days the consumer can reject it. This is the short term right to reject. If my £200k car broke down in the first 30 days I would seriously consider rejecting it.
Outside of 30 days but within 6 months the consumer has to give the trader 1 opportunity to fix or replace the car and it is presumed that the fault was there from the outset. If the consumer is outside of 6 months then he/she has to prove the defect was inherent or present from the point of sale.
In this case the consumer gave them the opportunity to fix it and the fault is still present. You could question why he should have to take the risk of owning a lemon or for the fault from reoccurring in the future - for example when the car is out of warranty.
In my situation the fault occurred within the first 3 months and the last occasion at 18m. They had multiple opportunities to fix it and they couldn’t.
What was quite interesting with all the tech on cars is that they weren’t actually fixing anything. What they were doing is with error codes they clear the code and carry out a software update and then return the car to me as that’s all they could do. Dealers will follow what the manufacturer says. They don’t have someone in a dealer debugging software. Perhaps someone in Germany was looking at the data and programming a future fix while I’m meanwhile stranded again on the hard shoulder. I later found out that the manufacturer knew about the fault but they didn’t really know how to fix it.
If a vehicle ticks the box for being unsatisfactory quality (it cannot be something trivial) in the first 30 days the consumer can reject it. This is the short term right to reject. If my £200k car broke down in the first 30 days I would seriously consider rejecting it.
Outside of 30 days but within 6 months the consumer has to give the trader 1 opportunity to fix or replace the car and it is presumed that the fault was there from the outset. If the consumer is outside of 6 months then he/she has to prove the defect was inherent or present from the point of sale.
In this case the consumer gave them the opportunity to fix it and the fault is still present. You could question why he should have to take the risk of owning a lemon or for the fault from reoccurring in the future - for example when the car is out of warranty.
In my situation the fault occurred within the first 3 months and the last occasion at 18m. They had multiple opportunities to fix it and they couldn’t.
What was quite interesting with all the tech on cars is that they weren’t actually fixing anything. What they were doing is with error codes they clear the code and carry out a software update and then return the car to me as that’s all they could do. Dealers will follow what the manufacturer says. They don’t have someone in a dealer debugging software. Perhaps someone in Germany was looking at the data and programming a future fix while I’m meanwhile stranded again on the hard shoulder. I later found out that the manufacturer knew about the fault but they didn’t really know how to fix it.
epom said:
Coming around slightly to the OP's view on things. Yep its a super complicated piece of machinery, isn't that the very reason its so expensive??
If you don't get what you pay for, do what's best for you.
In simpel terms "don't make your problems my problem".If you don't get what you pay for, do what's best for you.
if Porsche decide that they need to enginneer a highly complex piece of machinery to delive the driving experience and performance that can be expected at this price point, then it's simply their problem if they cannot make it work. It's like saying that it's such an expensive car and difficult for customers to pay for it, hence Porsche should just discount such that it works for you.
15HN said:
It’s not as easy as some posters are suggesting and the question arises of should the consumer accept the risk for an inherent defect?
If a vehicle ticks the box for being unsatisfactory quality (it cannot be something trivial) in the first 30 days the consumer can reject it. This is the short term right to reject. If my £200k car broke down in the first 30 days I would seriously consider rejecting it.
Outside of 30 days but within 6 months the consumer has to give the trader 1 opportunity to fix or replace the car and it is presumed that the fault was there from the outset. If the consumer is outside of 6 months then he/she has to prove the defect was inherent or present from the point of sale.
In this case the consumer gave them the opportunity to fix it and the fault is still present. You could question why he should have to take the risk of owning a lemon or for the fault from reoccurring in the future - for example when the car is out of warranty.
In my situation the fault occurred within the first 3 months and the last occasion at 18m. They had multiple opportunities to fix it and they couldn’t.
What was quite interesting with all the tech on cars is that they weren’t actually fixing anything. What they were doing is with error codes they clear the code and carry out a software update and then return the car to me as that’s all they could do. Dealers will follow what the manufacturer says. They don’t have someone in a dealer debugging software. Perhaps someone in Germany was looking at the data and programming a future fix while I’m meanwhile stranded again on the hard shoulder. I later found out that the manufacturer knew about the fault but they didn’t really know how to fix it.
Good write up. If a vehicle ticks the box for being unsatisfactory quality (it cannot be something trivial) in the first 30 days the consumer can reject it. This is the short term right to reject. If my £200k car broke down in the first 30 days I would seriously consider rejecting it.
Outside of 30 days but within 6 months the consumer has to give the trader 1 opportunity to fix or replace the car and it is presumed that the fault was there from the outset. If the consumer is outside of 6 months then he/she has to prove the defect was inherent or present from the point of sale.
In this case the consumer gave them the opportunity to fix it and the fault is still present. You could question why he should have to take the risk of owning a lemon or for the fault from reoccurring in the future - for example when the car is out of warranty.
In my situation the fault occurred within the first 3 months and the last occasion at 18m. They had multiple opportunities to fix it and they couldn’t.
What was quite interesting with all the tech on cars is that they weren’t actually fixing anything. What they were doing is with error codes they clear the code and carry out a software update and then return the car to me as that’s all they could do. Dealers will follow what the manufacturer says. They don’t have someone in a dealer debugging software. Perhaps someone in Germany was looking at the data and programming a future fix while I’m meanwhile stranded again on the hard shoulder. I later found out that the manufacturer knew about the fault but they didn’t really know how to fix it.
At the end of the day these are expensive cars to buy and to maintain when out of warranty. Reflashing software is a pie in the sky way to trying to fix an electrical fault they don’t know how to fix yet.
Porsche can’t loose sight and need to continue to build on their level of experience within their dealer network if they still want to achieve the service standards they used to offer ten plus years ago.
No point trying to up sales numbers at maximum profit if they can’t deliver high service standards.
Hopefully the original poster finds a resolution which works for him and porsche GB.
I will certainly be following this thread with interest.
maz8062 said:
I think it’s a crazy law and open to abuse. The OP buys a car for £230k say - drives it for 6 month and 2500 miles - with a warranty, but hands it back and only has to pay £1125 (@45p per mile) or £187 per month for the enjoyment. Meanwhile the car is worth circa £170k.
That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
They may be “crazy” rules but Porsche are willing to do business in the UK and many other countries where those rules exist…I’d say Porsche think that it is a risk they are prepared to run on a tiny % of their production. If they can’t fix a car that is between 30 days and six months old and done a few thousand miles that should carry a significant risk for them. That’s mad in my view. The only ones that loses is the manufacturer, the salesman and the DP.
But as the saying goes, “dems da rules”
Thanks once again for today's posts. I've stirred a hornets' nest, I fear, but I will certainly keep you updated.
I was talking to a friend today, who was the owner of a local Mazda dealership, before selling up. I told him to wear his owner's hat and don't pull your punches. He felt I had a very good case to reject, but that I should contact Porsche HO Customer service. I'm nervous of doing this though, as that would undermine the dealer, before they've had a chance to respond, which was by 25 April.
When I told him the dealer couldn't look at it until 2 May, so a month from emailing them on 2 April about the return of this fault, he said that was not acceptable, especially as I'm not now using it and, as an owner of a business, he would have been getting the car in much sooner.
I do stick by my maxim, that it's not unreasonable for me to expect a £200k product to work and to be of satisfactory build quality.
I was talking to a friend today, who was the owner of a local Mazda dealership, before selling up. I told him to wear his owner's hat and don't pull your punches. He felt I had a very good case to reject, but that I should contact Porsche HO Customer service. I'm nervous of doing this though, as that would undermine the dealer, before they've had a chance to respond, which was by 25 April.
When I told him the dealer couldn't look at it until 2 May, so a month from emailing them on 2 April about the return of this fault, he said that was not acceptable, especially as I'm not now using it and, as an owner of a business, he would have been getting the car in much sooner.
I do stick by my maxim, that it's not unreasonable for me to expect a £200k product to work and to be of satisfactory build quality.
funboxster said:
Thanks once again for today's posts. I've stirred a hornets' nest, I fear, but I will certainly keep you updated.
I was talking to a friend today, who was the owner of a local Mazda dealership, before selling up. I told him to wear his owner's hat and don't pull your punches. He felt I had a very good case to reject, but that I should contact Porsche HO Customer service. I'm nervous of doing this though, as that would undermine the dealer, before they've had a chance to respond, which was by 25 April.
When I told him the dealer couldn't look at it until 2 May, so a month from emailing them on 2 April about the return of this fault, he said that was not acceptable, especially as I'm not now using it and, as an owner of a business, he would have been getting the car in much sooner.
I do stick by my maxim, that it's not unreasonable for me to expect a £200k product to work and to be of satisfactory build quality.
Funboxtser can I just check if the car is with you or the dealer as if it is with you then you must cease using it right away and deliver it to the dealer as part of your rejection or invite them to collect it and record the mileage so you cannot be accused of using it. To clarify if you are rejecting it then you must not use the car. I was talking to a friend today, who was the owner of a local Mazda dealership, before selling up. I told him to wear his owner's hat and don't pull your punches. He felt I had a very good case to reject, but that I should contact Porsche HO Customer service. I'm nervous of doing this though, as that would undermine the dealer, before they've had a chance to respond, which was by 25 April.
When I told him the dealer couldn't look at it until 2 May, so a month from emailing them on 2 April about the return of this fault, he said that was not acceptable, especially as I'm not now using it and, as an owner of a business, he would have been getting the car in much sooner.
I do stick by my maxim, that it's not unreasonable for me to expect a £200k product to work and to be of satisfactory build quality.
I did the same as you and did not involve GB unless I had to however the dealer encouraged me to report it to GB as it assists them in getting a manufacturer's contribution. What you could do is to communicate the issue to GB so it is on record and say that you wish to allow the dealer to resolve it amicably with you and that way your report is not hostile nor a complaint.
With me it took around 8-10 weeks (they will try and wriggle out of it and persuade you that they can fix the vehicle) hence I would ask the dealer or GB for a hire car if they are taking 1 month just to revert to you need a car for the interim. That is not unreasonable if they are saying wait a month for a response.
If you did have finance payments going out during the time they take to process the rejection then they would have to pay the interest - just explaining if anyone refers to this thread in the future.
I have friends who are DPs and they say what they will do in a rejection situation is to heavily discount a replacement car to retain the customer. That is very likely to be possible on a Turbo S. Better they sell another unit as opposed to having you go elsewhere.
There is one alternative under the CRA2015 (Section 24). You could negotiate a price reduction for the fault as an alternative to the refund.
You shouldn't feel bad about it at all (I expect you don't). A £200,000 car should be, more or less, flawless from new. I know as petrol heads, in this modern age of electronics and complexity, we expect vehicles to have hiccups and generally don't freak out about it, but there are limits.
s2000db said:
I shouldn’t be too concerned about Porsche losing money in this, there’s probably at least £100k gross margin on this car..
I very much doubt the parts and manufacturing costs total any where near 6 figures imo…
I am in agreement with the OP in respect of rejection.I very much doubt the parts and manufacturing costs total any where near 6 figures imo…
However, highlighting parts and manufacturing cost is irrelevant. An iPhone doesn’t cost £1000 to physically make, but that ignores th research, development, testing, marketing, etc - all of which have to be paid for.
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff