|
There's no issue with residual value however many warranty repairs have been done under the original warranty - my last Hyundai had an engine/transmission rebuild, 5x refurbished alloys, 2x new steering wheels, 2x immobilisers, new suspension bushes - better than the average Hyundai of the same age as more parts were newer.
Edited by RT on 21/02/2017 at 10:22
|
|
It is not clear whether the CRA applies here at all. Was it a trade purchase?
For the C in CRA: “Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.
|
|
This seems to be a fuss about not a lot. I'm not convinced a "noise when turning" is really enough to consider rejection anyway. It evidently didn't stop the van from doing it's primary purpose.
Van had fault, fault was fixed under warraty. Surely that's end of story?
Just road test it before accepting it back to confirm they have indeed fixed it.
|
|
Thanks very much to everyone who has responded , it has been very helpful.My main concern is that the van has now had two major repairs in the first few months of ownership. I've done everything i've been asked to by both the dealer and customer services . The noise was getting worse to the point of vibration on the pedals.
|
|
Just ask them to allow you a test drive before you accept it back so you can confirm they have indeed fixed it.
It won't have any effect on the long term value of it. Lots and lots of cars have warranty repairs - if they didn't manufacturers wouldn't need to offer warranties to sell them!
|
|
Adrian, accept the situation. The van has been repaired, you are back where you are before all this started, the van has not lost anything in value and you are under no obligation to say anything when you pass it on. In situations like this VW are obliged to repair the vehicle, they are not obliged to replace it unless it cannot be repaired.
VW and their associates are being more than reasonable with you in the circumstances but if you keep messing people around and making unreasonable demands, before long someone will run out of patience and come after you!
Don't like what you are being told? Go and see a legal professional.
PS. Take a big box of tissues with you, something tells me you are going to need them
Edited by TedCrilly on 21/02/2017 at 14:28
|
|
|
|
Thanks very much to everyone who has responded , it has been very helpful.My main concern is that the van has now had two major repairs in the first few months of ownership. I've done everything i've been asked to by both the dealer and customer services . The noise was getting worse to the point of vibration on the pedals.
I totally understand your position. However, if the vehicle is fixed properly (and I'm sure they'll have tested it thoroughly knowing how angry you are) then there's nothing negative left to worry about.
Test drive it thoroughly when you pick it up and if it drives as it should then you can relax.
|
|
Aidan. What you read here is opinion, some quite strong but none, SFAIK, based on being a practitioner in law. The devil lies in the detail. Get legal advice, paid for, if you are not happy with the car. You may need an engineers report if there are symptoms that there is still a fault.
Edited by nortones2 on 21/02/2017 at 20:47
|
|
So, is someone on here saying if you bought a brand new vehicle from a franchised dealer, say, 200 miles from your home, you have to take the faulty vehicle back 200 miles to the same franchise dealer for them to repair and if not, you lose your Consumer Rights Protection!? Give your head a shake.
The law changed in 2015. If a new or used vehicle has a significant fault in the first 30 days, you can reject the vehicle and get a full refund. You do NOT have to accept a repair. It is also the dealer's responsibility to collect the car and they cannot deduct anything off the refund for this.
If the fault developed after the first 30 days but before 6 months, you have to give the dealer one chance to repair the car. The repair can be undertaken at ANY franchised dealer (in the case of a brand new vehicle) for the vehicle make. If the repair doesnt fix the vehicle, you can reject it. In doing so, the dealer can make a deduction for mileage on the vehicle andtime elapsed. Again, it is for the dealer to collect the vehicle (if the supplying dealer wants it returned) and cannot deduct anything off the refund on account of this.
The caddy can be rejected as one repair hasnt fixed the issue. The issues however are, was the vehicle bought as a commercial or private transaction (I know a few private users who've bought vans) and, is the noise 'significant' to warrant rejection if so how much the dealership offers given the mileage. If the owner and dealer are at stalemate, then a court will have to decide the outcome.
I suspect a noise isnt significant in this case and if the owner wants to reject the vehicle bought as a private transaction, he'll either have to accept a significant drop in value as offered by the dealer or take it to court.
Edited by heliboy on 22/02/2017 at 20:21
|
So, is someone on here saying if you bought a brand new vehicle from a franchised dealer, say, 200 miles from your home, you have to take the faulty vehicle back 200 miles to the same franchise dealer for them to repair and if not, you lose your Consumer Rights Protection!?
CRA only imposes obligations on the seller - not the manufacturer and not other dealers for that manufacturer - no different in that respect to the old SoGA.
|
|
|
So, is someone on here saying if you bought a brand new vehicle from a franchised dealer, say, 200 miles from your home, you have to take the faulty vehicle back 200 miles to the same franchise dealer for them to repair and if not, you lose your Consumer Rights Protection!? Give your head a shake.
The law changed in 2015. If a new or used vehicle has a significant fault in the first 30 days, you can reject the vehicle and get a full refund. You do NOT have to accept a repair. It is also the dealer's responsibility to collect the car and they cannot deduct anything off the refund for this.
If the fault developed after the first 30 days but before 6 months, you have to give the dealer one chance to repair the car. The repair can be undertaken at ANY franchised dealer (in the case of a brand new vehicle) for the vehicle make. If the repair doesnt fix the vehicle, you can reject it. In doing so, the dealer can make a deduction for mileage on the vehicle andtime elapsed. Again, it is for the dealer to collect the vehicle (if the supplying dealer wants it returned) and cannot deduct anything off the refund on account of this.
The caddy can be rejected as one repair hasnt fixed the issue. The issues however are, was the vehicle bought as a commercial or private transaction (I know a few private users who've bought vans) and, is the noise 'significant' to warrant rejection if so how much the dealership offers given the mileage. If the owner and dealer are at stalemate, then a court will have to decide the outcome.
I suspect a noise isnt significant in this case and if the owner wants to reject the vehicle bought as a private transaction, he'll either have to accept a significant drop in value as offered by the dealer or take it to court.
You purchase the car from a dealership - not from a manufacturer. Whilst you MAY be able to take the car in to any of the dealerships franchised by the manufacturer (for example, warranty work), the lawful contract for purchase is ONLY with the dealership you bought it from. Technically, it may not even apply with another dealership within the same group, depending on their legal structure.
So, his CRA rights are against the selling dealership. Nobody else. Otherwise it would be equally sensible to suggest that he could have taken the car in to Joe Bloggs garage (if no VW dealership within reasonable range), they'd failed to fix it, so he could now reject it as a fix had failed.
Such an approach would be patently stupid.
|
|
I took the van to a different VW Dealer under the instruction of VW Customer Services. They were in close contact we me throughout the whole process. Whilst the van was there they could not diagnose the fault so they asked VW Technical Suport for advice . This led to the steering rack being replaced .This leads me to believe that all Dealerships fall under the one umbrella of Volkswagen.
|
|
Warranty is separate to CRA rights - it's common in the car industry to be able to use any franchised dealer of the same brand for servicing and warranty work but it's not a legal right.
Warranties "never" contain rights to reject - only CRA does - as already explained CRA relates to the selling dealer, not any dealer and not VW UK.
|
I took the van to a different VW Dealer under the instruction of VW Customer Services. They were in close contact we me throughout the whole process. Whilst the van was there they could not diagnose the fault so they asked VW Technical Suport for advice . This led to the steering rack being replaced .This leads me to believe that all Dealerships fall under the one umbrella of Volkswagen.
Belief is a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately, it's of absolutely b***** all use in the face of cold hard reality.
Are you really trying to claim that, if you buy a car from Hawco VW (Inverness, in case anyone was wondering), and you have a problem with it, you can reject it at Carrs VW (Helston, Cornwall), in spite of them being owned and run by completely different companies and having no relationship to each other apart from the fact that they both have a contract with VW ?
I must remember that in future. Company X sells Panasonic TVs, and have an agreement with Panasonic to do so. Company Y also sells Panasonic TVs, and have an agreement with Panasonic to do so. Therefore, Company X IS Company Y.
Same for airlines. BA use Airbus planes. Emirates also use Airbus planes. Therefore BA and Emirates MUST be the same company !
I believe it, so it's true !
Utter, utter stupidity.
Feel free to take your argument to a court. Please come back on afterwards and tell us how it went. I for one enjoy a good laugh.
|
|
Oh dear, oh dear. You patently dont understand consumer law.
You are buying a vehicle from the manufacturer via his franchised agent. Your presumption the exact same dealer must repair the vehicle or else lose the protection under consumer rights law is incorrect but please continue to spout your waffle.
And no, taking it to joe bloggs garage isnt sensible either and is a patently stupid suggestion.
Id advise anyone considering taking advice from RobJP to completely ignore him \ her as they havent a clue what they are talking about in this matter.
|
|
Simple facts are.
Your contract is with the dealer you buy the vehicle from and not the manufacturer.
All warranties I have seen permit you to have warranty work carried out at any franchised dealer.. Makes sense especially should you be 400 miles away on holiday.
But if you wish to reject a vehicle it must be with the dealer you have the contract with i.e. the one you bought it from.
Its quite simple and logical.
But having warranty work carried out by another dealer (even franchised) would potentially complicate a rejection since the selling dealer you have the contract with has had no control over the success of the alleged failed repair. I would expect them to want to try and sort it before a rejection were discussed.
|
Oh dear, oh dear. You patently dont understand consumer law.
You are buying a vehicle from the manufacturer via his franchised agent. Your presumption the exact same dealer must repair the vehicle or else lose the protection under consumer rights law is incorrect but please continue to spout your waffle.
And no, taking it to joe bloggs garage isnt sensible either and is a patently stupid suggestion.
Id advise anyone considering taking advice from RobJP to completely ignore him \ her as they havent a clue what they are talking about in this matter.
You might as well claim that you aren't buying a TV from Currys, you're buying it from Panasonic.
After all, Currys get their TVs from Panasonic, so that must make sense, right ?
I'm not buying my corn flakes from Tesco, I buy it from Kelloggs.
I don't buy my fencing supplies for the smallholding from my local farmers merchants, I buy them from the manufacturer. (doesn't matter that I don't know who the manufacturer is, that's what heliboy says is happening).
I didn't buy the PC I'm typing this on from Staples, I bought it from Acer.
For those of us not in some fantasy land, here's a little bit ...
Copied from 'Which'
www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consume...t
Your rights under the Consumer Rights Act are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer, and so you must take any claim to the retailer
Copied from some little motoring website, you might have heard of it :
www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/consumer-rights/
Your rights are against the supplier, which is the dealer and the finance company jointly if you bought it on finance.
Not against the manufacturer.
|
|
I believe Tesla sells its cars directly to the customer but can't think of any other manufacturer that does. The guarantee is directly enforceable against the manufacturer I believe but not too sure why.
|
I believe Tesla sells its cars directly to the customer but can't think of any other manufacturer that does. The guarantee is directly enforceable against the manufacturer I believe but not too sure why.
Because Tesla is doing the retailing - as well as manufacture.
|
I believe Tesla sells its cars directly to the customer but can't think of any other manufacturer that does. The guarantee is directly enforceable against the manufacturer I believe but not too sure why.
Because Tesla is doing the retailing - as well as manufacture.
Also, your warranty/guarantee rights are completely different to your CRA rights.
|
Audi and Mercedes have taken control of much of their dealer network in order to control prices and standards. Our local privately owned Merc dealer was terrible, owned by an absolute scumbag conman. If you called to ask for a price for a service the service receptionist had to ask him directly (by calling him at home) to get a price he thought they'd get away with.
His cars were hilariously overpriced and staff underpaid and thus those who were any good at their jobs left. It was a right mess, even listed in a What Car investigation as Britains dearest Merc dealer despite the rundown site.
I sympathise with the previous Audi franchise holder who still retains VW, Skoda, Seat and Hyundai as they've always been spot on but Audi now own our local dealership direct.
|
|
Renault own, or used to own, many of their dealers
|
|
Even where the manufacturer owns the dealership, I think they all sell to the dealer who in tunr sells to the customer. If you reject a faulty car, your claim would be against the UK subsidiary company who owns the dealership, not the overseas manufacturer.
Years ago dealers used to be called 'agents' - the Austin agent would be in competition with the Morris agent down the road - and it's possible that that's what they were in law. But apart from Tesla and perhaps some specialists like Morgan, I don't think that happens now. Someone correct me if I'm wrong!
|
Right enough Avant. Even if they do directly own it they'll have listed it under a different corporate name. The firm I worked for in the 90's had three sales sites and one large bodyshop but had seven different LTD trading entities so that we could bankrupt any loss making part of the firm without damaging the rest.
When they decided to offload the disastrous Proton franchise early they simply bankrupted that particular LTD firm so that Proton couldn't sue them for breach of contract as the firm that had signed said contract no longer existed. Any new deal was always agreed within a new LTD firm, it was the only way you could agree to the onerous terms demanded by manufacturers.
|
Right enough Avant. Even if they do directly own it they'll have listed it under a different corporate name. The firm I worked for in the 90's had three sales sites and one large bodyshop but had seven different LTD trading entities so that we could bankrupt any loss making part of the firm without damaging the rest. When they decided to offload the disastrous Proton franchise early they simply bankrupted that particular LTD firm so that Proton couldn't sue them for breach of contract as the firm that had signed said contract no longer existed. Any new deal was always agreed within a new LTD firm, it was the only way you could agree to the onerous terms demanded by manufacturers.
That's unethical as bankrupcy always has losers - but it happens all the time so regarded as acceptable.
|
|
It's not always that clear-cut, though.
As SLO has pointed out, imagine you're in a contract with a supplier, and the quality of the supplier's goods drops off markedly, depressing sales, and reducing the price you can get for the vehicles.
The supplier might well not be in breach of their contract - hey, they're still supplying the cars / toasters, etc, and they can still therefore demand you take a certain number of those every month, even if you can't sell them - after all, that was in the contract.
In such a case, while it may be a bit unethical, it's a critical safeguard. Far better one place of business goes pop than the entire lot.
Edited by RobJP on 25/02/2017 at 17:59
|
"That's unethical as bankrupcy always has losers - but it happens all the time so regarded as acceptable."
It's the only was to survive in business I'm afraid.
Had our firm operated under one entity when attempting to extract ourselves from the loss making franchise the whole thing would've been liable for the unrealistic terms of that contract.
|
"That's unethical as bankrupcy always has losers - but it happens all the time so regarded as acceptable." It's the only was to survive in business I'm afraid. Had our firm operated under one entity when attempting to extract ourselves from the loss making franchise the whole thing would've been liable for the unrealistic terms of that contract.
The losers are customers and suppliers - if a contract has unrealistic terms, don't sign it.
All shareholders lose is any positive value of their shares - apart from Lloyds of London, they aren't required to make up any shortfall.
"Limited liability" is used to cover all manner of poor management.
|
|
You could just as easily, in that case, argue for Ltd companies and the suchlike to be abolished - because the Ltd stands for limited liability - the directors and owners cannot be personally persued for the company debts unless they have acted with malicious intent.
All that you'd acomplish is the prevention of anyone setting up a small business, because if the business ever failed they could lose absolutely everything, their family homeless and destitute.
Hell, maybe you'd prefer it if we all just lived in a socialist utopia. Then nobody would be 'losers'.
Oh wait, that's been tried, hasn't it. Didn't work out so well ...
|
"The losers are customers and suppliers - if a contract has unrealistic terms, don't sign it.
All shareholders lose is any positive value of their shares - apart from Lloyds of London, they aren't required to make up any shortfall.
"Limited liability" is used to cover all manner of poor management."
Had we adopted your vision of good management the entire firm would have faced closure with the loss of dozens of jobs. I'd say that it was a good management decision to safeguard the rest of the firm.
As things stand that firm is thriving and has more than doubled in size, created a lot of new jobs and also saved many more when they took over another struggling firm.
Without the ability to limit your liability far fewer people would take the risk of setting up their own businesses and few established firms would risk expansion. We need to encourage people to take risks and opportunities not punish them for trying.
As for not signing that unrealistic contract well that's unfortunately what you're presented with when taking on a new car franchise. The amount of money you have to agree to spend on regularly upgrading facilities and on a certain level of new and used stock is huge and most single site franchises struggle to make it pay today. The only way to get decent terms is if you have the scale to negotiate on your terms. Said firm no longer has any new car franchises for this reason, it's simply next to impossible to make it pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
