I guess the actual question is whether they have to be given a chance to make it conform to contract (eg by replacing the brake light bulb), or whether there is an automatic right to refund without them having to be given that chance.
Engine Change after only 200 miles.
- Thread starter k.hemlin
- Start date
I think it's obvious that a bulb failure, which would be classed as a replaceable/serviceable item any way, wouldn't be classed as fundamental enough to warrant the whole car unfit for purpose, as a failed engine would. If, however the bulb failure was symptomatic of a more serious electrical fault with the car then yes you would be entitled to reject. Again, all of this assumes the fault occurs within a reasonable period from purchase.
Its quite simple guys - you have to give the supplying dealer three attempts to fix the fault, BEFORE you can reject the car. As for the dealerships stance, well they are fixing the car at the second attempt, under warranty, providing a suitable alternative mode of transport and with minimal fuss to the customer. They do not have to offer any extended warranty or compensation - that one is purely down to your relationship with them.
Why should they offer extended warranty - the replacement engine is at least 5 weeks newer than the rest of the car.
From someone who has succesfully rejected a car in the past I would recommend that you keep with the current car in the spec you wanted and with a new engine. The inconvenience of waiting for a rebuild or accepting another car thats not to your spec are really not worth considering.
Why should they offer extended warranty - the replacement engine is at least 5 weeks newer than the rest of the car.
From someone who has succesfully rejected a car in the past I would recommend that you keep with the current car in the spec you wanted and with a new engine. The inconvenience of waiting for a rebuild or accepting another car thats not to your spec are really not worth considering.
Artimus
Shortback
Because of the inconvenience of not having the car you ordered for a period of weeks or months when you should be able to drive it as and when you wish! I'm sure if the OP wanted an A4 he\she'd have ordered one!
It's not a case of them "having to" offer compensation, But good customer service\relations would make a compensatory offer for this reason! and it's not as though it's going to see the franchise out of pocket either, Audi themselves will get the original engine back and tear it to pieces to learn from it, so I'm sure they'll pay for any compensation - maybe the Dealer is seeing dollar signs & intends to keep any compensation offer from Audi UK\DE for their own use at a later date? Whatever, But the least they can do is make the OP comfortable with the whole experience.
to the OP: I'd be going over the Dealers head & asking Audi UK what they intend to do regarding the inconvenience you've suffered.
I've just caught up with the thread again, so thanks for all your inputs so far. Very interesting (and varied) to say the least!
Anyway, I have another update following the less than constructive phone call this morning...
Both Audi Lincoln and I have spoken to Audi UK through the course of the day, which led to a face-to-face meeting with the Head of Business at Lincoln Audi this evening. I am pleased to report that the strained phone call this morning was put far behind us and we have agreed to replace the car in full, to the same spec. Because of the long lead-time to manufacture a new car (unfortunate), it looks like my replacement will be a '63' vice '13' plate (fortunate). At this point, I'm now very happy with Audi and the Head of Business at the Lincoln branch turned out to be an exceptionally helpful and nice guy. Thankfully, no legal action was necessary and my faith in Audi is restored.
This goes to show that meeting in person is usually always better than a phone call.
Just to add...the fault with the engine remains unknown and the whole engine assembly is to be tested by Audi engine experts.
Anyway, I have another update following the less than constructive phone call this morning...
Both Audi Lincoln and I have spoken to Audi UK through the course of the day, which led to a face-to-face meeting with the Head of Business at Lincoln Audi this evening. I am pleased to report that the strained phone call this morning was put far behind us and we have agreed to replace the car in full, to the same spec. Because of the long lead-time to manufacture a new car (unfortunate), it looks like my replacement will be a '63' vice '13' plate (fortunate). At this point, I'm now very happy with Audi and the Head of Business at the Lincoln branch turned out to be an exceptionally helpful and nice guy. Thankfully, no legal action was necessary and my faith in Audi is restored.
This goes to show that meeting in person is usually always better than a phone call.
Just to add...the fault with the engine remains unknown and the whole engine assembly is to be tested by Audi engine experts.
Well done, gives me faith in the company as well - above and beyond. Others are right in this thread that they didn't have to do that but its good to see that you managed to got some exceptional service (eventually!)
A3sportbackMark
Registered User
Great result, sounds like Audi uk is the place to go. I have followed your trials and tribulations from the outset with all the varied advice.
Now you can relax!
Trev241
Registered User
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 18
k.hemlin, I agree it is always best in these circumstances to deal face to face with people. It does seem that you have reached a solution that in my view is the right solution, the only issue is in waiting for the replacement to come through. As I understand it a car dealer can refuse replacement if repair is a more sensible option. However, I would doubt whether engine replacement is really a sensible option, but that would be up to a court to decide. However, in going down the repair route, any repair would need to be achieved in a reasonable time without significant inconvenience. Once again ultimately it would be up to a court to decide what is reasonable and what is significant. Also any repair needs to be successful. In this case the repair of the intermittent warning lights was a failure and it was during the second attempt of a repair of this problem, that they decided that the engine should be replaced. This all reinforces my view that Audi have under the circumstances made the correct decision.
Yes zig, I agree. I will speak to Audi in the next few days to ensure my 'new' options package equates to my 'old'...and I even have the option to add others since it will be a new order (I will pay the difference, however, there's not much else I can add!).
I don't agree that they were going "above and beyond". All that's happened is they (the dealer) have accepted their legal obligations to their customer.
Not at all - their legal obligations are to repair the car, not to replace it. I don't know what law you mean?
They are purely changing the car because of bad press on a new model isn't what they want, legally, as stated, they don't have to replace the car, just fix it, but goodwill etc is playing the part (with audi uk, as head of biz sounds like an asse a little tbh)
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) if an item does not conform to contract the buyer can, if done so within a reasonable period, reject it outright for a full refund. Outside this period the remedies open to the buyer are one of repair, replacement or refund (partial dependent on usage), whilst the buyer can choose one of these remedies they cannot insist on any that is disproportionate to another in terms of cost to the seller. Any remedy must be performed within a reasonable time and must not cause a significant inconvenience to the buyer.
- Joined
- May 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,813
- Reaction score
- 200
- Points
- 63
- Location
- Hull, UK
- Website
- www.immotec.co.uk
Im glad Lincoln are sorting you out to your satisfaction. From personal experience there I would have expected nothing less.
As all well & good that Act intends to be, its not often adhered too or used given the costs of actually using the law & actually winning a case, with so many loop holes, its usually man on the street that has to bow down as such.
However, the dealer, although 1st instance very unhelpful indeed for a head of business, have acted appropriately on the warranty side, so they have done as required, now audi uk are involved, I feel its a marketing job now.
However, the dealer, although 1st instance very unhelpful indeed for a head of business, have acted appropriately on the warranty side, so they have done as required, now audi uk are involved, I feel its a marketing job now.
Have a read of this: Frequently Asked Questions | Honest John
Essentially, you can invoke that once the seller has been given 3 chances to remedy the problem, and not before.
I refer you to the following from your link:
Having to accept 3 repairs is not accepted as current law and certainly does not overrule your right to reject.
It all depends whether it gets as far as court, and what the judge would decide, and whether their lawyers could argue successfully that the previous law should apply. It'd probably end up being quite costly for you if it got that far though! Would it really be worth it?
Exactly, big business will just bankrupt you with costly paperwork & legal wrangling's, most just avoid the whole headache unless backed by a body as such, that has the weight to follow it through.
No, it would never get that far, mainly because the last thing a car manufacturer wants is case law defining what is considered a "reasonable period" for a car to be rejected. That's without any publicity they may have about bad customer service, or that their cars might not be as reliable as they'd like you to believe. They probably hate the fact that we're even discussing a very sick car on the internet - they'd much rather us believe all of their cars are faultless...
