brand new rusty car

[rebel11]

Hi vicky

 

Thanks for the update.

[ericsbrother]

Ok, if it is a latent problem, namely something that is an inherent problem with the vehicle you can take the matter up with the manufacturer if the sale of goods act doesnt allow you to seek remedy from the seller. This does not give the dealer the right to avoid his responsibility to you though and I think that they have the two utterly confused. The dealer can recover their losses from Dacia any time they wish but it is entirely their responsibility at this juncture.

[king12345]

I wouldn't complicate things by getting dacia involved.

The dealer is responsible for what he sells.

He can claim the money back from dacia afterwards, but this has got nothing to do with you.

Stand your ground and keep it between you and the dealer.

I would ignore any communication from dacia.

[heliosuk]

The dealer is responsible for what they sell but they are also an Agent of Dacia being an official dealer. I wouldn't be so sure of the advice above or that given by the solicitor as it is not known what the legal relationship between the dealer and manufacturer actually is. I would have expected the solicitors advising to have determined this before writing to the dealer. Look at the Citroen DS5 case. Here the owner rejected but the settlement came from Citroen GB.

[king12345]

The dealer is responsible for what they sell but they are also an Agent of Dacia being an official dealer. I wouldn't be so sure of the advice above or that given by the solicitor as it is not known what the legal relationship between the dealer and manufacturer actually is. I would have expected the solicitors advising to have determined this before writing to the dealer. Look at the Citroen DS5 case. Here the owner rejected but the settlement came from Citroen GB.

Yes, the manufacturer can admit liability and deal with car owners directly, but until they admit liability the contract of sale is between the car owner and the dealer.

It's the same principle that applies to tesco selling a faulty toaster.

The store were the toaster is purchased is responsible.

However the manufacturer or tesco head office can admit liability and deal with the customer directly.

If liability is not admitted the store or in this case the dealer were the contract was signed remains the responsible party.

Should the op take dacia to court, dacia could simply say that there's no contract between them and the op.

The contract of sale is between the dealer and the op and unless dacia head office admits liability and offers a refund, the op should only deal with the dealer.

Solicitor's advice is correct.

[RustyDuster]

That's my rejection letter off today to my dealer! I'll be back in touch when I have their reposonse fobbing me off

[rebel11]

The Dealer is responsible, but what you have here is the dealer not taking responsibility for the problem even though they have been made aware of the 'rust' issue. The dealer is worried about reimbursement from the manufacturer.

 

There won't be too many customers who will be asking for 'rust' as extras,

the Dealer needs to refund as 'rust' isn't going to take off anytime soon.

 

 

http://www.whatcar.com/images/subscription/HELP.pdf

[JoeyJoeC]

The Dealer is responsible, but what you have here is the dealer not taking responsibility for the problem even though they have been aware. The dealer is worried about reimbursement from the manufacturer.

 

http://www.whatcar.com/images/subscription/HELP.pdf

 

Dealer should be more worried about ripping off a customer.

[heliosuk]

Yes, the manufacturer can admit liability and deal with car owners directly, but until they admit liability the contract of sale is between the car owner and the dealer.

It's the same principle that applies to tesco selling a faulty toaster.

The store were the toaster is purchased is responsible.

However the manufacturer or tesco head office can admit liability and deal with the customer directly.

If liability is not admitted the store or in this case the dealer were the contract was signed remains the responsible party.

Should the op take dacia to court, dacia could simply say that there's no contract between them and the op.

The contract of sale is between the dealer and the op and unless dacia head office admits liability and offers a refund, the op should only deal with the dealer.

Solicitor's advice is correct.

 

Your missing the point King. The dealer is an AGENT of Dacia. That's the key to this. If the OP goes to court the first thing a judge will ask is the legal status of the parties involved.

In your example, Tesco is not the AGENT of the toaster manufacturer.

Whilst the solicitors advice may be correct or not the process that follows is the same i.e. the dealer is the supplier but can argue easily that they are not the liable partie in that they are the AGENT of the manufacturer.

 

This is why in cases like these with new cars the manufacturer gets involved.

 

It can get somewhat more complex than you think.

 

There was a wonderful case on this forum a year or so ago where the OP took exactly the same action as being recommended here and ended in disaster which mysteriously disappeared and a link to another one helpfully posted by Hammy showing what can happen if the dealer defends.

 

As has been pointed out, the dealer and Dacia need to be given the opportunity to rectify first.

[heliosuk]

Notable lack of response eh????????

[RustyDuster]

Notable lack of response eh????????

Guys, Ive a newspaper Interested!

 

EmaIL: [email protected]

[heliosuk]

Sunday Post a news paper????

 

I think not. About as much use to you as the Beano!

 

Just let Renault/Dacia get on with fixing the problem for you.

[RustyDuster]

Sunday Post a news paper????

 

I think not. About as much use to you as the Beano!

 

Just let Renault/Dacia get on with fixing the problem for you.

 

Very helpful mate! This is been well shoved under the carpet and hidden by Renault/Dacia so you're living in cuckoo land there!

[king12345]

Your missing the point King. The dealer is an AGENT of Dacia. That's the key to this. If the OP goes to court the first thing a judge will ask is the legal status of the parties involved.

In your example, Tesco is not the AGENT of the toaster manufacturer.

Whilst the solicitors advice may be correct or not the process that follows is the same i.e. the dealer is the supplier but can argue easily that they are not the liable partie in that they are the AGENT of the manufacturer.

 

This is why in cases like these with new cars the manufacturer gets involved.

 

It can get somewhat more complex than you think.

 

There was a wonderful case on this forum a year or so ago where the OP took exactly the same action as being recommended here and ended in disaster which mysteriously disappeared and a link to another one helpfully posted by Hammy showing what can happen if the dealer defends.

 

As has been pointed out, the dealer and Dacia need to be given the opportunity to rectify first.

Very true, but apparently they're dragging their feet and don't want to fix the problem.

You're right in saying that if the dealer is an agent then dacia head office should be the one refunding, but so far the dealer has not disclosed this information probably because he's a franchise.

An email to dacia should clear this point.

[vickymito]

Hi all,

Latest update,the dealer has been in touch with my solicitor trying to confuse the situation again saying he is awaiting advice from Dacia,we feel like retracting our rejection,and just have it repaired and sell it,i dont think we will ever get our money back,to go to court will cost £19,000 and we just dont have it.We feel the dealer and Dacia are just wasting time knowing that the longer it takes the more money we will have to pay out in legal fees.It just causes stress,we were looking on the Dacia forum and theres absolute loads of people in the same situation as us.

The confidence in the Dacia duster will disappear soon as customers start contacting the media,and then the car will be worthless,we may as well make a big loss now than a massive loss later.What a nightmare wish we'd stayed with alfa romeo.

[king12345]

I wouldn't give up so easily.

Why would it cost £19000 to take them to court?

It seems a bit exaggerated as a solicitor's quote.

Try another solicitor and you might find that it won't cost more than the car itself.

Clear cut case imo and worth taking it to court.

[rebel11]

Hi vicky

 

Here's some more info:- http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

[heliosuk]

Recent reports state Dacia come tops for customer service so give them a go.

[rebel11]

They would come top, they must have lots of customers complaining.

 

Recent reports state Dacia come tops for customer service so give them a go.

[Conniff]

Recent reports state Dacia come tops for customer service so give them a go.

 

 

 

That's when they are selling, you get a coffee and biscuit, but it's different when they have to give something back.

[rebel11]

Good post Conniff.

 

That's when they are selling, you get a coffee and biscuit, but it's different when they have to give something back.

[heliosuk]

That's when they are selling, you get a coffee and biscuit, but it's different when they have to give something back.

 

Apparently not Conniff according to the marketing report I read. In their segment they scored very highly for the way they responded to complaints and resolved them. It didn't mention coffee and biscuits either. Plus how would you know it's different when they have to give something back? Don't you mean take?

[Conniff]

No, the take back bit is easy, the 'give back' as in return the money is they bit they don't like.

[RustyDuster]

Any update Vicky? CAB have passed my query onto TS now and I've a solicitor I'm more than happy to go see to get a few letter done!

[RustyDuster]

I'm getting a full refund! Don't give up Vicky!