Tweet
Rejecting a vehicle after the statutory 6 month CR Act provison
Hi there,
I have a few questions regarding what options are available to me for the following situation:
I purchased a new vehicle in mid November 2015 on finance (PCP) with the manufacturers branded finance from one of their franchised dealers.
Since then I have experienced 27 separate faults in just under a year of ownership. We have taken time off work on no less than 6 occasions. This has included faulty engine parts, coolant leaks, tailgate gas strut failure, misaligned body panels, software errors in the automatic transmission, navigation and air- conditioning, interior trim rattles etc. On each occasion the dealer fixed the issue under warranty. Only a few weeks would go by before another issue surfaced. The vehicle is currently with the supplying dealer again with a failed engine management computer that is still unresolved some three weeks later. Neither the manufacturer nor dealer has been able to get to the bottom of the issue. We have been supplied with a courtesy car.
I finally lost confidence and patience during this last visit and formally wrote to the dealership, finance company and the manufacturer stating the catalogue of issues and my complete lack of faith that the vehicle is reliable or of satisfactory quality and a request that they replace the vehicle. This was in early November 2016.
The dealer has come back to me with an offer to replace the vehicle with a new one. The caveat is that they are asking me to cover 50% of the shortfall between the trade in value of my faulty vehicle and the retail price of a new one. The manufacturer and dealer have offered to cover the remaining 50%.
I realise my excessive patience has meant that I no longer have an automatic CR Act rejection right (6 months). However, I am not convinced the offer is reasonable. Their justification for asking me to contribute so much is based on a trade-in value and a pence per mile calculation supplied by the manufacturer of the number of miles our vehicle has covered since new. I would argue that we've had this number of miles of unsatisfactory ownership.
In the forums opinion, Is this a reasonable offer?
Also, what is the role of the finance company? So far they have acknowledged my complaint. They have stated that they cannot supply me with a new vehicle themselves. However, I should not accept any replacement that is of a lower spec than my current vehicle as it would put them in a negative position ( i.e they own it.)
According to their own finance literature:
Satisfactory Quality By law, goods sold must be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose for which they were intended. Where there is a credit agreement in place the finance company has a responsibility for the quality of the goods and to resolve any disputes where the goods are not of the required standard.
I assume this is referring to Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Section 9 Implied terms about quality or fitness.
What leverage can I apply to have them contribute? would they cover the shortfall? could I reasonably ask them to extend the agreement by a year to cover the shortfall (essentially, loaning me the 50%)?
Any thoughts gratefully received.
BB
I have a few questions regarding what options are available to me for the following situation:
I purchased a new vehicle in mid November 2015 on finance (PCP) with the manufacturers branded finance from one of their franchised dealers.
Since then I have experienced 27 separate faults in just under a year of ownership. We have taken time off work on no less than 6 occasions. This has included faulty engine parts, coolant leaks, tailgate gas strut failure, misaligned body panels, software errors in the automatic transmission, navigation and air- conditioning, interior trim rattles etc. On each occasion the dealer fixed the issue under warranty. Only a few weeks would go by before another issue surfaced. The vehicle is currently with the supplying dealer again with a failed engine management computer that is still unresolved some three weeks later. Neither the manufacturer nor dealer has been able to get to the bottom of the issue. We have been supplied with a courtesy car.
I finally lost confidence and patience during this last visit and formally wrote to the dealership, finance company and the manufacturer stating the catalogue of issues and my complete lack of faith that the vehicle is reliable or of satisfactory quality and a request that they replace the vehicle. This was in early November 2016.
The dealer has come back to me with an offer to replace the vehicle with a new one. The caveat is that they are asking me to cover 50% of the shortfall between the trade in value of my faulty vehicle and the retail price of a new one. The manufacturer and dealer have offered to cover the remaining 50%.
I realise my excessive patience has meant that I no longer have an automatic CR Act rejection right (6 months). However, I am not convinced the offer is reasonable. Their justification for asking me to contribute so much is based on a trade-in value and a pence per mile calculation supplied by the manufacturer of the number of miles our vehicle has covered since new. I would argue that we've had this number of miles of unsatisfactory ownership.
In the forums opinion, Is this a reasonable offer?
Also, what is the role of the finance company? So far they have acknowledged my complaint. They have stated that they cannot supply me with a new vehicle themselves. However, I should not accept any replacement that is of a lower spec than my current vehicle as it would put them in a negative position ( i.e they own it.)
According to their own finance literature:
Satisfactory Quality By law, goods sold must be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose for which they were intended. Where there is a credit agreement in place the finance company has a responsibility for the quality of the goods and to resolve any disputes where the goods are not of the required standard.
I assume this is referring to Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Section 9 Implied terms about quality or fitness.
What leverage can I apply to have them contribute? would they cover the shortfall? could I reasonably ask them to extend the agreement by a year to cover the shortfall (essentially, loaning me the 50%)?
Any thoughts gratefully received.
BB
Comment