|
If it's a one off then, as stated, the dealer will pass it off as a mistake and unless there is more evidence it will be filed as NFA. OTOH if same dealers name crops up repeatedly than action is probable.
Don't recall it ever happening with a car dealer but certainly had it locally with employment agencies.
|
|
For some reason, I get the feeling that this is a new username for the same person who was wanting to find out some details on a Nissan Navara a week or 2 ago.
I may be mistaken, of course.
|
|
|
|
To answer the OP’s origional post I’m assuming you’re upset because a car that was taken back by a dealer because of a fault was then returned to sale? What do you expect happened to them? Did you believe they’d destroy it instead of repair it? We occasionally had situations where a fault had caused too much hassle and a car was refunded or replaced for a customer and it was almost always fixed properly, often run by a member of the sales team for a while to make sure it was fixed then it would be offered for sale again as a perfectly decent car. Are you upset because the dealer isn’t telling prospective buyers that it had been taken back as defective? They’d never sell it if they did and they’re not obliged to tell as long as the fault has been properly repaired. If you’re not an interested party in buying this vehicle I don’t understand your upset.
Perhaps its the claim that the car is an ex-demo, when I would've thought that it has to be advertised as being owned privately and returned because of said major fault (whether its been rectified or not). If I were thinking of buying the car (still under warranty) after this and for a substantial sum, I'd like to know that the car had been returned after a very short period of ownership, the reason why (details of the faults) and proof that the faults were fixed. I think this is where electronic maintenance records can be really useful.
For household/home electrical products, ones that are offered for sale by the shop that were repaired goods have, I think, to be described as such, and, for the most part, are either offered at substantial discounts on a short warranty (say 3-6 months) dependent upon the severity of the fault and age of the product.
You have to wonder sometimes why the original owner felt it necessary to reject the car - this could indicate poor customer service from either the dealer or manufacturer, someone who just didn't like the car (say if they didn't do enough of a test drive) or in some cases, a pedantic or greedy customer who was trying to get too much compensation/goodwill. Difficult to know without the information. If the dealership was honest and up front, I'd certainly be impressed and more likely to buy, as long as it was proven any and all problems were fixed and still covered by the warranty.
|
|
It would be interesting to know the nature of the manufacturing fault, it's possible consequences and how the OP knows it has not been rectified.
And, going back to earlier qustions, if you post under your own name in this day and age it won't take many minutes to find your pages in social media.
|
|
If the OP is still monitoring responses to this thread, it would be interesting to know the nature of the "various other claims which I can prove to be entirely false".
No need to give any names and encourage any lawyers.
|
|
Usage of the vehicle, history of ownership and condition of the vehicle regarding repairs.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply.
There have been several faults and the same has been experienced with the replacement vehicle, although different faults to that of the original vehicle. Some have been very minor or easily remedied (eg paintwork damage, hand brake not working, etc.) but there have been others which are still under investigation and I am awaiting clarification from the respective workshop undertaking some of the repairs.
|
|
|
|
|
Very well put and thank you for your input. If there was npothing to hide then why be to uneconomical with the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply but unfortunately you are passing comment from an uneducated point of view and without knowledge of the full extent of the issues.
The dealership in question has been asked to confirm if the vehicle has had any major repairs and they have confirmed that it has not. The vehicle was recalled due to a very serious fault within the vehicle itself and if the claim that it has not undergone any repairs is correct then it is safe to state that the fault with the vehicle still exists - and also is potentially very dangerous.
I am interested that no other person is sold this vehicle without the opportunity of knowing the full extent of the history of this vehicle and the problems that it has. If the dealership was confident that there were no issues then why did they not declare its history instead of giving completely innacurate sales information??
|
|
So the vehicle was subject to a recall in the past?
Sorry but that is not really an issue and goes even further in explaining to me why TS are not interested.
|
|
The vehicle was not part of a recall in the past but was replaced by the manufacturers due to the extent of the serious manufacturing problem that was found. It should be noted that the vehicle was initialy subject to an improvised repair and the dealership tried to pass it back to me as being satisfactorily repaired - which it was not.
The sales information I have been given for the vehicle is completely misleading and with potential implications towards safety. That, I believe, should stir up at least some form of interest from TS.
|
|
|
|
|
The advertised mileage shows that the vehicle has not been used by a manager/salesperson as suggested - it is exactly that recorded at the ponit in time that the vehicle was returned.
The fault with the vehicle was very serious and, with respect, why should the manufacturers/dealerships profit from their own mistakes and simply pass on the problem to someone else and charge them over 25k for the privilege.
Interesting to note that the vehicle has had two (not one as advertised) previous owners, has a poor quality issue history, has a substantially reduced warranty and is for sale at a price very similar, if not slightly more, that I paid for it brand new!!
|
|
Sorry to say it but it would appear that you have no understanding as to how car manufacturers, their dealers and the used car market itself operates. Other than it does not conform with your standards and expectations. Unfortunately there is nothing I, and I suspect any other member of this forum can do about that.
|
|
You are probably correct about my lack of understanding Ted. However, if these people believe that it is ok to mislead someone into parting with such a large amount of cash then I would hope, for all our sakes, that you would agree that this shoulb be effectively policed or the culprits of this bad practice should be identified.
|
|
I note that my suspicion about this being the same person who was asking questions regarding a Nissan Navara the other week weren't answered.
Somehow, I'm not surprised.
You seem to, for want of a better word, have an 'agenda' against Nissan. You are out of it, and I'd suggest that you keep it that way. Bear in mind that if you interfere with a sale, or cause grief or distress to people then injunctions, court action, etc. can take place.
They've got more money than you for lawyers. If it came down to a fight, you'd lose.
|
|
RobJP,
Apologies for the late reply but I have had personal matters to deal with that were significantly more important than this.
It would be appreciated if you could clarify your meaning of "out of it" as I am unable to comprehend your message.
I find it particularly disturbing that anyone should suggest that I would be at risk for exposing the truth and as such would seemingly endorse malpractice and false representation - is the behaviour of the dealership not equal to taking money by deception?
Unfortunately I have lawyers acting on my behalf at the moment (stressful) and it is for this reason that I am somewhat, for the time being, gagged as to the extent of what can be said about the faults with the second vehicle - let alone the 1st one which was very bad.The nature of the faults should eventualy made public and allow people to make their own judgements before parting with tyhe well earned as again; why should the manufacturers profit from their mistakes and pass on sub standard equipment (potentially dangerous) to someone who has probably worked very hard for their cash.
You arne't a dealer by any chance are you?
|
|
|
|
|
I have as yet not seen anything from you that confirms those concerned are intentionally misleading anyone. Recalls are not major repairs, the car will now be perfectly safe and of course dealers sell cars for more than they themselves pay from them.
I am beginning to suspect nothing more than a vendetta
|
|
Obvious quesiton: What is the dangerous fault?
|
|
Something to do with the nut behind the steering wheel?
I will get my coat!
|
|
|
|
|
Ted - again, and with respect, you are making statement from an unqualified position and I can assure you that the fault with the vehicle was/is very serious and will eventualy all come out in the wash. Interesting to note that the fault was deemed so serious that I was requested to sign a confidentiality agreement in an attempt to cover up the issue!!
What is worrying is that you are prepared to declare that the vehicle shall be perfectly safe yet have no understanding of what the issue is or if the required repairs to the vehicle have been carried out. I have very good reason to believe that the required repairs have not been carried out, that this would present a potentially dangerous situation with this vehicle and this is my main reason for looking towards engaging the authorities to look into the history of this vehicle.
Vendetta??? - I would call it public concern and decency. Vendetta should be reserved for the poor unsuspecting victim that maybe purchase this vehicle if the original fault still exists.
|
RobJP,
Apologies for the late reply but I have had personal matters to deal with that were significantly more important than this.
It would be appreciated if you could clarify your meaning of "out of it" as I am unable to comprehend your message.
I find it particularly disturbing that anyone should suggest that I would be at risk for exposing the truth and as such would seemingly endorse malpractice and false representation - is the behaviour of the dealership not equal to taking money by deception?
Unfortunately I have lawyers acting on my behalf at the moment (stressful) and it is for this reason that I am somewhat, for the time being, gagged as to the extent of what can be said about the faults with the second vehicle - let alone the 1st one which was very bad.The nature of the faults should eventualy made public and allow people to make their own judgements before parting with tyhe well earned as again; why should the manufacturers profit from their mistakes and pass on sub standard equipment (potentially dangerous) to someone who has probably worked very hard for their cash.
You arne't a dealer by any chance are you?
Ahh, to start with, the 'typical' comment when someone hears something they don't want to hear :'You work for a dealer / manufacturer' or the suchlike.
By 'You are out of it' I mean that it is in the past. You have rejected the vehicle and got a refund. Do yourself a favour, and leave it there.
You make all sorts of dark hints as to the 'dangerous' faults, and yet refuse to specify on a single one of them.
If you are, as you claim, "gagged" and unable to say anything specific, then might I suggest you say nothing at all.
Then again, there's probably a very good reason why you are 'gagged'. Either an injunction against you (in which case you're being really dumb, and risking contempt of court by even alluding to the situation and making all these dark hints), or your own solicitor has advised you to shut up before you get yourself into trouble (in which case you're being equally dumb, and risking an injunction or even a claim for damages).
|
|
RobJP, thank you for your interesting reply and clarification of your phraseology although unfortunately I am not out of it yet and shall advise you further of the outcome when I am - if you are interested that is?. For your information; there is no injunction and I have absoutely nothing to fear from any form of legal action as I can substantiate all that I have written as being true.
Apologies if you interpret my clasification as "dark hints" but if you look back at the initial thread then I was only looking for input from others who had a similar experience to that I had with CA/TS - it was others such as yourself who appeared to want to digress into other areas of my enquiry.
The term "gagged" is due to the fact that I have an appointment with my solicitors and until they have advised me further then it would seem sensible to await their advice prior to making any comments that may predjudice my case. In any event' it was not my intention to publicly embarras anyone just to ensure that any unsuspecting purchaser is given a fair deal and chance of assessing the risk on purchase that they are making - sounds fair doesn't it??
Unfortunately, in you later paragraphs, you have decided to descend to the unsavory depths of personal remarks. This is not uncommon and is often the last refuge of those who have little left to contribute to a reasoned debate and as such I would respectfully suggest that you should take some of your own advice - thanks for the entertainment.
|
|
Your case?
Against who?
TS or the dealer?
.........and for what.
|
|
Cannot see how any current/prospective legal involvement stops you from making a statement of fact along lines of:
I rejected first vehicle becuase I beleived it to have faults x, y and z and it was replaced by the dealer.
Unless of course the agreement to replace included a non disclosure agrement. If it did the OP has already sailed beyond close to the wind.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 19/11/2017 at 10:31
|
|
Bromptonaut, thank you for your interest and I can assure you that there is no such disclosure agreement in place and never would be. I have explained to others within this forum that it was not my intention to publicly embarass anyone and that the thread has somewhat digressed from the original content of where it started.
Suffice to say that the initial faults with the vehicle can safely be described as serious and raise concerns not only of quality but of manufacturing process and PDI checks that had quite clearly been lacking given the severity of the faults in hand. There are subsequent faults that are still not yet established and I am currently unable to gain the level of transparency from those involved which is the reason for initiating legal action in the first instance.
|
|
Ted - apologies but this thread has gone away from the original intention of posting and I am unable to understand some of your statements which just appear to be defensive on the side of the dealer/manufacturers.
As previously stated; it was not my intention to publicly embarass anyone but I feel strongly about someone advertising incorrect details of a vehicle to an unsuspecting buyer. One of the major facts are that the seller has confirmed that there has never been any major repairs carried out to this vehicle and if this is the case then the vehicle has serious petential to be dangerous to future owners - now surely you would agree that there must be something wrong if any dealer is not willing to be transparent about the true history of any vehicle?
|
|
To be honest, I am finding it very difficult to believe most of what you say.
Not that it really matters.
|
|
Then I am at a loss as to your interest in the thread Ted - some of the thought patterns that this subject has attracted are quite disturbing and perhaps it is time to put the coat back on??
|
|
You still refuse to provide any details of the faults, continuing with what I described (and continue to describe) as 'dark hints'. Comments like the "serious manufacturing problem", "serious potential to be dangerous", , the manufacturer selling a vehicle that is "substandard" and "potentially dangerous", "serious future safety issues", and the suchlike. All without providing a single specific example of these serious faults.
You've even gone full martyr, with comments about how this is all about "public concern and decency", the "stressful" appointments with lawyers that you HAVE to endure to protect "some poor unsuspecting person".
You even basically say that only by your actions and self-sacrifice is it ensured that the manufacturer is "effectively policed", and "the culprits identified".
Read all of that lot. Ask yourself if those sound like the actions of a rational, sane person, or those of a nutjob who probably wears a tinfoil hat.
Now, if it was me, and there were real, dangerous faults out there (rather than imagined ones), then I'd be putting details into the public domain.
|
|
RobJP, thank you for another entertaining but somewhat unnecesary contribution. If you look back to the original thread then you would probably realise that the current position has been established by those who chose to digress and offer little in terms of related content.
Yes....I would not wish for any poor and unsuspecting individual to lay out their hard earned cash for something that is not what it has been claimed to be and anyone that has a problem with honesty and transparency is not someone I would like to deal with. Anyone having apparent sympathies or accepted understanding of this as an acceptable process is surely to be avoided if they themselves are indeed invoilved within this type of business.
You also appear to be making several assumptions in respect of the content of previous threads and there is a worrying element into how the mind that has transposed this must be working - would you like to borrow the hat?. There is also a return to unnecessary and juvenile behaiviour in terms of unnecessary remarks and I would again suggest that you would probably be better off taking some of your own previous advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
