Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for your advice. They didn't really reduce her bill when putting her on the rolling contract. She's emailed BT to complain as well about £800 fee. She will have to check where she stands with her mobile contract given she is still paying each month as she still needs to have a mobile phone for emergencies. A lesson on how careful you have to be when changing providers
    • forget CAB you might as well phone bt back as thats about as useless as they'll be.   you can't have a rolling 24mts contract', bt rolling contracts are month to month only, thats an industrywide accepted definition of what rolling means.   what happened here is she earlier changed her 'package' removing skt to reduce costs. as with all providers that invoked = means she entered into a new 24mts contract.   she latterly phone to cancel that contract, and thus bt charged her the cancellation fee/loss of revenue over the raining months of the contract.   the fact that she owes them 'this money' but didn't pay it, then entitled them sadly to cancel the mobile contract, which sadly again they allowed to do.   rock and a hard place if she wants to keep the same mobile number.   Or as long as her phone is not imie blocked by bt (in otherwords she purchased from BT under the mobile contract) but simply locked to BT (which is easily gotten around for a small fee at many shops/market stalls or if someone is tech savvy follow the guides on youtube to unlock the phone for an even smaller fee. and wack a new sim in it.   as for the £800 bill simply ignore them. they'll sell the debt on  and if anyone like Lowells or anyother powerless DCA debt buyer wants to do court, it's easily defended we've not lost one case like that here.        
    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Saab advertising incorrect fuel economy figures on car advert


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4441 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I purchased a Saab last year, specifically for commuting. Therefore the fuel economy figures heavily influenced my decision making on what car to buy.

 

The original car advert states the wrong fuel economy figures. My car has a performance upgrade on the engine management system. This was stated on the advert. Yet the MPG figures are for a normal engine. This means that the car's fuel economy doesnt even come close to what Saab have advertised.

 

I was only aware of this after buying the car and spending some time investigating why my fuel economy was so poor. I managed to speak to the engine upgrade company and obtain the real MPG figures. There is a BIG difference.

 

I am very angry because I would not of bought the car if I'd of been presented with the correct MPG figures.

 

 

I have written to Saab Great Britain, but have not had any response back.

 

 

The problem is, I love the car, and dont want to get rid of it, regardless of its poor fuel economy.

 

But I still think that Saab should have their knuckles wrapped for what is essentially false advertising. Whether it be by accident or not. As they have sold a car based on false fuel economy figures.

 

I am keen to ensure this doesnt happen to anyone else. I wonder if there are other car manufacturers out there doing the same.

 

I would like to escalate this, as Saab have not responded, what would be my next step ? The Department Of Trade and Industry ?

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They all do it! the consumption figures are based on goverment and EU guidelines for comparison only, and do not form part of any implied specifiaction or contract or part of the conditions of sale.

The test are carried out to strict rules so they are comparable and do not reflect road conditions or any driving style. They are conducted in a Lab on a rolling road with various bits not on the car and using a run in ( used engine ). Also not all models are tested they are allowed to interpelate between models and engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, I've had that response from the Saab online customer service website. And yes, its out of order if they arent reflecting realistic and acheivable consumption figures.

 

If that isnt annoying enough. In my case I have a Saab 9-5 1.9Tid Sport with a Hirsch Engine Upgrade.

 

But the fuel consumption figures advertised are for a bog standard 1.9Tid.

 

 

Which are even more inaccurate. Surely theres a case there of false advertising ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you say your car has an engine upgrade, i take it this is to give it more performance. therefore you obviously want your car to go faster- this unfortunately does not go hand in hand with fuel economy. to get any where near the manufacturers figures you need to drive so carefully it is unbelievable, wellying about won,t help at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

read my previous posts.

 

They advertised the fuel consumption figures for the normal engine. Not the figures for the saab approved hirsh upgraded engine.

 

So regardless of how I drive, they have put the wrong consumption figures on their advert. Whether unintentional or not, surely its false advertising.

 

 

And yes, I do realise that more performance comes at a cost.

 

I did a test back in August, after filling up with BP Diesel Ultimate, resetting the trip computer, switching off the aircon and every other electrical system in the car, and also coasting with the foot on the clutch at every oppurtunity, I was still only briefly able to reach the combined MPG of 41mpg. Which is ludicrous, because you simply cannot drive a car like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but you did briefly reach the figure quoted, therefore technicaly the vehcle is capable of reching that figure. a manufacturer- especially with a diesel- is going to quote the absolute highest figure they can achieve, as it is a sales point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no, I reached the COMBINED 41 mpg figure, whilst free wheeling over 50% everywhere over long distances, with no air con, in perfect weather conditions, whilst using more expensive diesel to achieve better fuel economy.

 

City Driving published figure is 37mpg.

Long Distance Driving published figure is 56mpg !!!!!!!!

 

If I drive the car sedately and in normal driving conditions I get 31mpg.

 

So you can see, that the car can only manage the average MPG, only in exceptional circumstances.

 

 

But all this is irrelevant. You seem to fail to grasp the basic issue here. Which is the fuel economy figures that they published are incorrect. They are for a standard engine, not a remapped one.

 

How many times do I have to explain it to you ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to explain it to you ?

 

You don't have to keep explaining it to us. Those of us who know what we are doing understand very well the point you are trying to make. It's just we can't accept it.

 

Fuel comsumption figures are quoted to help with a purchase decision, they form part of compulsory EU legislation. They should be used for comparison and not as a guide. Plus, there are a wide range of factors and 'as new' modifications that can distort the actual figures.

 

I expect all of this is explained in the small print, even Saab's.

 

How many times do we have to explain it to you!!

 

Hammy :)

42 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fuel comsumption figures are quoted to help with a purchase decision"

 

And NO, you DONT understand the point I am making at all. The MPG figures advertised were for a normal 1.9Tid engine, not one with a Hirsch Upgrade. This is FALSE ADVERTISING. And my purchase decision was BASED ON INCORRECT FIGURES.

 

Christ almightly. Its not rocket science. Do you lot work for Saab ?

 

 

And yes, I obtained the correct MPG figures from Hirsch directly, and they differ hugely from the standard 1.9 TiD engine. They are a lot closer to the economy I am managing.. which is fine... BUT THESE FIGURES WERENT ON THE ORIGINAL ADVERT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you have had a dealer fitted/aftermarket upgrade although approved by saab not fitted in the factory therefore not subjcted to the eu legislation manufacturers have to follow to produce and print mpg figures for standard factory cars

 

or am i missing something?????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, quote from a well known manufacturer :-

 

"Note: Manufacturer's data according to new government test regulations.

Fuel consumption figures: The results given here do not express or imply any guarantee of the fuel consumption of any particular vehicle with which this information may be supplied. Vehicles are not individually tested and there are inevitable differences between individual vehicles of the same model. The vehicle may also incorporate particular modifications. Furthermore, the driver's style and road traffic conditions, as well as the extent to which the vehicle has been driven and the standard of maintenance, will affect its fuel consumption. Fuel tank Petrol/Supercharged usable fuel 88.1 litres (18.5 gallons). Diesel usable fuel 84.1 litres (19.4 gallons). Low fuel warning at 9 litres (2 gallons) approximately."

Hammy :)

42 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the OP's point.

 

The advert was for a particular model of Saab - the 19TiD with Hirsch upgrade, but the figures listed in the advert were for the car without the upgrade.

This is not that different from the car ads on TV which have have 'starting from £xxxx' in large print over footage of the top spec version (costing twice as much) and then a tiny disclaimer saying the headline price is for the very base model.

 

I can understand why the OP is annoyed, but if I were in his position, I'd have double-checked the figures with Hirsch.

 

LancerQRL - a performance upgrade doesn't necessarily mean worse fuel economy. I have a 9-3 with a performance ECU upgrade and get around 10-20% better mpg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

when a manufacturer makes a car- the car is designed to give the best all round performance possible, taking into account fuel economy, reliability, power, torque etc. when a upgrade is carried out it is usually a software update to the ecu and alters the original settings. this may indeed lead to a increase in fuel econmy but against a slight drop in torque maybe. as rscott101 points out if fuel econmy was a greatest desire then maybe the original op should have researched the figures a bit better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...