I wrote & delivered my official Rejection letter on 27/12/17 to the Sales Manager. Although I did not dump the car at their yard, I did urge for them to take the car back as I no longer wished to use it. They insisted it was fine I keep using it (probably because they didn't think they'd have to take it back) until further notice. All phonecalls I made were recorded & stored for further reference. I have recieved a call Today from Audi letting me know they WILL be going through with the rejection & are processing the full refund already. I will be returning the car to them on Monday with all relevant documents & keys. Thank you all for the information you have provided, I dare say my strike back at Audi wouldn't have been as effective if it wasn't for the CAG. I'll be sticking around for sure

Ive looked over the Exacting 145 Point Check and not only is there no written note of an exhaust modification, but all exhaust idle/clamp/pipe checks were all completely fine apparently. They've either completely ignored the blatant modification or the person who carried out the check didn't manage to spot it. Either way it's been overlooked, and as a customer I'm not pleased with the service at all. Currently awaiting a callback from Audi Customer Relations.

After further investigation it’s very unlikely that any MOT Test Centre would fail a car on a resonator delete, the vehicle emissions stay the same and it doesn’t make the car loud enough to fail. With this in mind I have a feeling Audi may have a chance to wiggle out of this situation, despite the fact that they are in violation of the CRA & BlackHorse are in breach of contract under CCA Section 75. Any other ideas?

Thank you Homer, you raise a very good point. Will get it MOTd by an independent garage and when it fails it will 100% be not fit for purpose. They can’t argue with that.

Cat is still present yes.

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.

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.

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.

Ah I see, thank you for clarifying this I’ll get in touch with Blackhorse ASAP and inform them of this breach of contract.

Thank you for the information dx. Unfortunately I paid via Debit Card which rules me out of the CCA with BlackHorse.

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?

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.

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