Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post #415 you said you were unable to sell it yourself. Earlier I believe you said there had been expressions of interest, but only if the buyer could acquire the freehold title. I wonder if the situation with the existing freeholders is such that the property is really unattractive, in ways possibly not obvious to someone who also has an interest in and acts for the freeholders.
    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Audi refusing to accept my vehicle rejection


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2300 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I'll get straight into it.

 

I bought an Approved Used Audi S3 (2015) from Watford Audi on 29/11/17. Car was listed for £24K, I paid a £500 deposit which included the £350 GAP Insurance. I was also intending to drop a £3,000 Deposit on my first monthly outgoing, bringing the payment down from £457.66 to £378.92.

 

I SPECIFICALLY asked the dealer I was assigned if the car was standard as the exhaust sounded very sporty, I thought it possibly could've been a sports exhaust. He assured me the car was STANDARD. I go ahead with the sale on a 49 Month PCP with Blackhorse Finance.

 

Not but 3 weeks later, I am pulled over to the side of the road by a Police Officer who claims my car is excessively loud and urges me to get the vehicle independantly checked. I get the car checked & what is brought to my attention? A centre silencer box has been REMOVED and a straight piece of pipe welded in its place. NOT STANDARD. This classifies the vehicle as "not as described" under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, classing it as unsatisfactory.

 

With this information, I write up a Rejection letter for both Audi Watford & Blackhorse Finance.

On 27/12/17 I personally hand the letter to the Sales Manager at Audi, with my partner recording the entire event for proof of delivery.

The manager comes off as very apologetic and says he will need a day or so to process through the request and get back to me.

 

A couple of other Sales Associates at Audi get in touch with me via phone so they can arrange for the car to be brought in for inspection.

The car is picked up, inspected & delivered back to me with the outcome being that there is in fact a NON-STANDARD modification to my apparently "standard" Audi.

 

Being the New Year, it takes up until Today 02/01/18 for Stephen to get back to me & deliver me the news that at this current moment in time they are "refusing" to accept my rejection of said vehicle.

 

He states that as the problem is not a performance enhancement nor causes any catastrophic failure to the vehicle, it is "fit for purpose" and the rejection won't be happening.

 

I state that I am well within my rights to a rejection as the request for rejection was given to him within 30 days (with proof) which means I have a Short Term Right To Reject within 30 days of purchase, according to The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

He explained to me that the current plan is to go ahead with a repair/compensation style of agreement, to which I refuse to accept & state that I am within my rights to refuse this offer and receive a full refund.

 

As it stands now, Stephen has told me that he will need another day or so to take it up with his management to try and source my preferred outcome.

 

Blackhorse Finance know about this situation and they have urged me to try and settle it with the dealer first before they can get involved.

 

What are my options at this stage?

To the best of my knowledge I have a right to reject within 30 days as the vehicle is not as described & I am allowed to refuse their offer to replace/repair the car within 30 days and receive a full refund.

 

Help would be greatly appreciated, I smell a court case :)

Edited by Barretted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering they lied to me about this obvious exhaust modification, there could be a number of things waiting to go "wrong" with the vehicle that may not cover warranty.

 

I don't want to deal with the hassle of this car & what could potentially be. I would much rather demand my refund and be done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you only have a right to reject the car as not as described within 14 days.??

not 30??

 

that only applies if the goods are faulty.

these goods are not faulty.

 

however if I could get out of a PCP agreement with blackhorse I would do anything to do so.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge,

goods “not as described” fall under the Satisfactory Goods section of The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Because there is a breach of contract with what I was sold & I informed them of my intention to Reject the car within the 30 day period,

surely I have a short term right to reject?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I might be wrong but that does not cover you...they are not faulty..

 

however if you can prove the verbal side of things..

 

Consumers can expect that goods will be in conformity with the core rights:

 

As Described

 

Goods provided must conform to any description applied to them; this description can be made verbally or in writing.

 

this might be you sticking point...proof you questioned such regarding the exhaust..

 

you might find it better to pursue under CCA section 75 with the PCP agreement against Blackhorse...

far more reliable and satisfactory outcome IMHO.:madgrin:

 

that way there is no dispute under any time limit or description

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no the PCP AGREEMENT is under the Consumer Credit Act.

section 75 does not only apply to credit cards.

its part of the ACT.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE:

 

I spoke to an After Sales Manager and I was told that it is not "Refused" but at the moment in time it is "not yet accepted".

 

Blackhorse are currently communicating with Audi to try and resolve the issue, I spoke to them myself Today as well as Audi HR.

 

I informed them that they were in breach of contract under the Credit Consumer Act Section 75 on the PCP Finance Agreement (thanks to dx100uk for pointing this out) to which they didn't seem too happy to hear.

 

For now I'll be waiting for a call on Friday to determine the plan of action, they have 7 days from Today to resolve it AFAIK (14 days from 27/12/17) which I hope will end with the Rejection I am aiming for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well done

:boxing::boxing:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you only have a right to reject the car as not as described within 14 days.??

not 30??

 

that only applies if the goods are faulty.

these goods are not faulty.

 

however if I could get out of a PCP agreement with blackhorse I would do anything to do so.

 

Sorry but I think the goods are faulty. The silencer is part of the vehicle and is not “working” or operating within the manufacturers specifications and as described to the OP and thus the exhaust system itself is faulty

Link to post
Share on other sites

no its been modified

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been modified but is faulty as not operating in accordance with the manufacturer specs or legislation. For example, if I bought a tumble dryer that the retailer had “modified” and due to that “modification” the drum was only spinning at 1rpm then the item is faulty. Just because it’s modified doesn’t make it not faulty. If it was mofified in some way that was still legal and within the manufacturer specs then that is different ie not faulty

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a side issue re a modification and insurance

it may have some implication re insurance as some insurers ask about any 'modifications' to a car, maybe effecting the premium/any subsequent claim.

ie it is also important to be advised re such whether a car has been modified or not, particularly when asked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is modified

that is not a fault not faulty under CRA or any other legislation.

 

however, it is not fit for purpose.

and that is covered under CRA.

 

you need to ensure you use the correct terminology

else you'll be taken for a fool

 

likewise under a section 75 claim it is nothing to do with any breach of contract

its an agreement.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's more under the "as described" section under the CRA as I was specifically sold a standard car with no mods that turned out to be modified? not the fit for purpose section?

 

I get what you're saying, it's modified and therefore does not comply with the manufacturer standard for the vehicle and could very well be not fit for purpose.

 

Either way yes you're right, the Section 75 claim is a more clear cut case for my desired outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

doing it again..

it has been modified, the modification is specifically against what you requested,

 

I SPECIFICALLY asked the dealer I was assigned if the car was standard as the exhaust sounded very sporty, I thought it possibly could've been a sports exhaust. He assured me the car was STANDARD.

 

:wink:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

doing it again..

it has been modified, the modification is specifically against what you requested,

 

I SPECIFICALLY asked the dealer I was assigned if the car was standard as the exhaust sounded very sporty, I thought it possibly could've been a sports exhaust. He assured me the car was STANDARD.

 

:wink:

 

So you're saying it's not fit for purpose as the car does not meet the requirements I specifically asked for?

 

It's a good point but unfortunately I have no valid proof of my specification for the vehicle I desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and you then found it had not middle box - had been modified

you were right.

 

is the cat still there?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's got a straight through exhaust it is also possible and very likely that the ecu has been mapped.

Both things will potentially make you fail mot and void your insurance.

I agree that the car is not as described and also, if these modifications are an mot failure, unfit for purpose.

Pursue a full refund.

Especially if the ecu has been mapped, in most cases the car has been enhanced in performance and engine would wear quicker than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been modified but is faulty as not operating in accordance with the manufacturer specs or legislation. For example, if I bought a tumble dryer that the retailer had “modified” and due to that “modification” the drum was only spinning at 1rpm then the item is faulty. Just because it’s modified doesn’t make it not faulty. If it was mofified in some way that was still legal and within the manufacturer specs then that is different ie not faulty

 

How do you know it isn’t operating in accordance with? It isn’t there.... how can it be faulty if it isn’t there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a police officer has stopped you because he suspects it is too loud and then you find that the exhaust system has been modified

 

id be getting the garage to replace the entire system to make it standard.

 

Your arguments are its modified ( insurance problem)

 

Excessively loud ( possible mot failure)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an MOT failure guaranteed , vehicle is not fit for purpose or as described when sold - DX is 100% right.

 

I suggest that's why the previous owner part exchanged it having modified it and knowingly made it not compliant with the MOT test which is due this year for a 2015 car.

 

I would also suggest you take it to an independent garage and ask for an MOT test - when it fails you have the evidence you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...