Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Airlines in the region are coming up with different strategies to tackle the pandemic travel slump. View the full article
    • The 46,000-year-old Juukan Gorge rock shelters were destroyed to make way for an iron ore mine last year. View the full article
    • yep did warn of this before.   let it run they'll sell it on.  
    • Update from FOS. They have sided with Tesco Bank. Their main reasoning for this is due to "floor limit's"   Thee statement the FOS put is as follows: "Regardless of who the retailer is, it’s not unusual for stores to have the aforementioned ‘floor limit’ in place. And if the store doesn’t request authorisation from Tesco for the transaction to be approved then it doesn’t have the opportunity to decline it, and once the transaction goes through Tesco has an obligation to pay that amount even if it takes the consumer over the agreed limit.   So based on the information that I currently have I can’t find that Tesco’s done anything wrong because it’s correctly applied the over limit charges as per the terms and condition of the credit card.   And while these same terms and conditions state Tesco has the ability to stop transactions and prevent consumers going over their limit, again this is only possible if the retailer requests authorisation for the transaction.   But there’s also no obligation on the business to stop these transactions, the terms and conditions say that it can or may stop them but don’t state that they will.   It’s important to remember that ultimately it’s always the consumer’s responsibility to manage their account and make sure that they stay within the agreed credit limit. It’s not the business’ responsibility to manage the consumer’s account for them and stop them from going over the limit."   If all merchants have floor limits then what's to say for example Currys having a floor limit of £500 and someone with a credit limit less that £500, does this mean the transaction goes through?   It seems like this so called floor limit is an excuse for Tesco's to make money.
    • We cannot be certain that VCS are aware of the Airport Act's existence. So it cannot be said that they neglected or denied it. Much safer just to infer that it calls into question the accuracy of their WS.   What you want to do is to put doubt in the Judge's mind about the veracity of the WS without using such strong language as yours. They can vehemently deny they were aware of any such Act and your final sentence is thrown out of the window. By simply calling into question the accuracy of their WS you are putting a query into the mind of the Judge even if VCS do deny knowledge. And the Judge will already have downgraded their WS  somewhat with the non appearance of its author.   But it is good that you are looking to improve your WS. Ideally you want VCS  not to turn up in Court and one way to do that is that VCS will not want something in your WS scrutinised or queried by the Judge. And casting doubt on their WS is to be avoided since they are usually a concoction of lies and half truths. Which is why the author of the WS does not appear since they could then be subject to charges of perjury.
  • 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
      • 33 replies

Audi refusing to accept my vehicle rejection


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1150 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

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.

IMO

:-):rant:

 

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...