Thread: Do any consumer protection rules apply?

Can anyone quote me "chapter and verse" of any consumer protection rules which may apply to my situation? Viz. In November 2008 i bought a new Citroen Picasso to replace my 2005 model. The salesman new that this car was bought on the back of the overall results the 2005 car yeilded, including fuel consumption. The new car consumes approx 10% more fuel than the old one under same conditions. After months of research, it appears that new car is fitted with particle filter system which is the major cause of higher fuel consumption. At no time did salesman explain this to me or i would never have bought this car--I thought i was buying like for like. In time, there will be substantial servicing costs incurred as a result of this system being fitted.
What action can i take--dealer won't help and dosen't want to know.
I maintain that i was mis-sold this car and somewhere i read that NOT to disclose info on a product was an offence under some act.
HELP PLEASE!

Thanks very much Conniff. It's Arnold Clark i am having the problem with and can't find the right consumer protection act that covers my predicament. Most threads are on Citroen Picasso Owners Club website, under fuel consumption, and on this site under "How do i stand". I thought that this site did not allow a name and shame post.

Yes Conniff, this is tied in with my query. Car has latest software update but this won't affect FAP filter system. trying to find way to check if they got my Rec Del--had a few so maybe refusing delivery as they will know who it is from.

Thanks again. Letter delivered on 10/9/09. Yes, my sentiments entirely, thats why i would not have bought this car if these details of the FAP system had been explained at the outset. Can you suggest what, if any, consumer act might cover this situation?
Maybe leave it overnight to allow your grey cells to come up with answer. lol.

Originally Posted by Conniff

Having said that, I suppose it's not a stupid system as it brings them in lots of extra funds having it topped up and at such a high cost.

The top up periods are at very high mileages and need to be accepted as such such as the likes of cam belts (and as is turning out, HPCR diesel injectors). I remember the same argument about catalytic convertors.

The point here is that since the introduction of FAP/DPF, fuel economy has reduced in order to comply with current and forthcomming emmissions regs yet this has not been made clear to the end purchaser by the manufacturer.

In fact, the difference is so significant that it beggars belief that a manufacturer in this day and age can get away with it.

On the assumption that the manufacturer has supplied actual figures to the VCA, then one can only draw two conclusions in that there is something wrong with the fuelling system or that the manufacturers claims are false.

Bearing this in mind, Scaniaman must have been sold faulty goods or goods that not meet the standards claimed and the onus therefore is for them to prove they do!

How this stands under consumer law I don't really know but is an interesting one to follow.

Conniff, I think that "Consumer Regulations from Unfair Trading Regulations" Sec6 3(a) --Misleading Omissions covers some of my problems. As Heliosuk says, the manufacturers are keeping very quiet about the effects of FAPetc, and it is high times that the unsuspecting public were made aware of this. How can this best be achieved???

Update:- The spineless TS in this area tell me that there is sufficient evidence to report matter to the Proc Fisc. When asked what further evidence they required (and i would get it for them) they cut short the call. I am at my wits end to know how to proceed as i can't afford a lawyer being an OAP. See also thread on Shafted by A.Clark.