Refund on car, after 2 years...

[SCARS]

Hello,

First I’m actually the car dealer, not the customer, and would like to know what you think is a reasonable solution to this.

 

We sold a 2002 Renault Laguna petrol to the customer in Jun 2009. The car developed a fault under during our normal 3 month warranty, and we had the vehicle in replaced a faulty fuel regulator with a new one from Renault and the sent the now happy customer on their way.

In December 2009, outside of the warranty, the car failed again with similar symptoms. As it seemed like the same fault, we had the car back in again and diagnosed the fault to be the regulator again. The part was covered by a 12months warranty from Renault, and they agreed to have the vehicle in and fit a new unit free of charge. Customer was happy enough and took the car into the local Renault agent had the part fixed, end of story as far as we were concerned.

As far as we were concerned that was the end of the matter.

Roll onto this month, where we are contacted by the customer demanding the full money back on the car £2995 as the vehicle was not fit for the purpose supplied.

I have confirmed with Renault that they have fitted six fuel regulators to the car over the last 24months. And that due to a supply issue they have been lending the customer a car on several occasions whilst they are waiting for the part to arrive from France.

Renaults also admit there seems to be a fault with the design of the unit, and are struggling to provide a reliable supply of good regulators. They are actually reconditioning returned units to put back in cars.

The customer has managed to travel 16,000miles since they bought the car.

The car is current with Renault waiting for a new regulator to be fitted.

The customer has bought a car from another garage prior to contacting us.

Renault is still willing to pay for replacement units, and thus it’s still ongoing with them.

What would seem a reasonable solution for all involved to this mess?

[sailor sam]

Hi and welcome to CAG.

 

If this was the only problem with the car then I cannot see how the customer can demand a refund claiming the car was 'not fit for the purpose'. Can you clarify that the 2nd replacement failed in December 2009 and has lasted untill now? If that is the case, then the 12 month warranty on the part has surely passed anyway and in any event, your obligations to the customer ended in December 09 (unless there were any other on-going issues) as I see it. It seems that it is Renault who know they have the problem and appear to be attempting to deal with it and have taken on the responsibility.

[Jeepstar]

We were agents many years ago for Santana which are now owned by Iveco. We had a customer who's fuel pump failed with 2 months left on the original vehicle warranty. Approximately 4 months later the pump failed again (we strongly believe it was the customer using contaminated fuel from his own tank). Anyway as the vehicle was now out of warranty we contacted santana explaining the situation. We were told even if the pump had failed at only 1 day outside of manufacturer warranty they wouldn't replace even though it was a new pump.

 

The customer sought legal advice and was advised that he had no comeback at this point.

 

Using this scenareo I'd say you need do no more.

[raydetinu]

Agree, problem not serious enough to warrant refund.

Problem being sorted by Renault direct and many consumers would love that scenario, and not the usual not my problem guv.

[SCARS]

Hi and welcome to CAG.

Can you clarify that the 2nd replacement failed in December 2009 and has lasted untill now? If that is the case, then the 12 month warranty on the part has surely passed anyway and in any event, your obligations to the customer ended in December 09 (unless there were any other on-going issues)

 

That was the last time we had contact with the customer, however Renault have had an ongoing arrangment with the customer, fitting six more regulators over the following 24months. Thus the parts warranty has never had the chance to expire.

[sailor sam]

I don't see what claim the customer has against you then. It would appear that it isn't the car itself that is the problem assuming that is the only defect. And in any case, (as you no doubt know) it is far more difficult for a case to be bought under the SOGA outside 6 months after purchase and if the customer is directed tio Trading Standards, he should discover that fact. I think under the circumstances, Renault are handling the matter pretty well. Obviously they realise that they have an issue with this particular component and as such it is out of your remit thus the customer has no where to go with it IMHO.

[Dragons Dennis]

The customer has not been in contact with you since December 2009, so has forgone the opportunity to reject the car at all. The selling dealer (you) must be given the opportunity to rectify the problem or offer a refund. You were denied this opportunity by the customer seeking redress elsewhere. Who is now to say whether another garage has casued a problem?

 

In any event, demanding a full refund after almost 2 years is ridiculous. They have had a continuing problem with Renault, so let Renault sort it out for them then.

 

In my humble opinion as an ex dealer and now campaigner for consumer rights/justice, I am on your side this time. I would write back and politely explian that as they have not been in contact with you at all since December 2009, you were denied the opportunity to rectify the problem as it occured and thus you have no responsility or intention of refunding and suggest they take up any issues with the garage that has done extensive work on the car for the last 2 years.