What Car Sep 2006

[gary350]

The new What Car has pics and info on the following MBs

New C photoshop pics
New ML420cdi - test
New GL420cdi - test
New CL readers test reviews

Read about owner of 3 week old B Class and recurring (seems to be inherrent fault in the car)power loss and MB failure to help, they offered another car or £18000 cash back which is £3,600 less than he paid for it, even when What Car intervened on his behalf, bet they are sorry now.

gary

 

[kensalriser]

I don't understand the partial refund. Are cars subject to different consumer legislation?

As far as I understand it, if a product is found to be defective it must be repaired, replaced or refunded in full. If you bought a faulty lawnmower you wouldn't expect to be offered a partial refund because you'd mowed your lawn once or twice with it.

 

[Flash]

I don't understand the partial refund. Are cars subject to different consumer legislation?

As far as I understand it, if a product is found to be defective it must be repaired, replaced or refunded in full. If you bought a faulty lawnmower you wouldn't expect to be offered a partial refund because you'd mowed your lawn once or twice with it.

Agree - thats just MB Stealers/DC UK for you....

 

[ddentrec]

I don't understand the partial refund. Are cars subject to different consumer legislation?

As far as I understand it, if a product is found to be defective it must be repaired, replaced or refunded in full. If you bought a faulty lawnmower you wouldn't expect to be offered a partial refund because you'd mowed your lawn once or twice with it.

Correct. But it is manufacturer's policy to try this on - it saves them £££££'s - and, surprisingly, most people accept the offer: only persistant ones get all of their money back. So there is no incentive to offer a 100% refund, especially as it is unlikely that the customer is going to buy the same brand with the cash.

 

[hawk20]

I don't understand the partial refund. Are cars subject to different consumer legislation?

As far as I understand it, if a product is found to be defective it must be repaired, replaced or refunded in full. If you bought a faulty lawnmower you wouldn't expect to be offered a partial refund because you'd mowed your lawn once or twice with it.

But they offered him a new car in place of his faulty one. So that is a full refund in kind.
If he won't take a brand new replacement (why not?) then even the US lemon laws make a reduction in price based on the first year's depreciation and the proportion of annual mileage already done.

 

[Shude]

But they offered him a new car in place of his faulty one. So that is a full refund in kind.
If he won't take a brand new replacement (why not?) then even the US lemon laws make a reduction in price based on the first year's depreciation and the proportion of annual mileage already done.

A replacement is not a full refund and the rate of depreciation applied to the above story would make the car's value zero after only 18 weeks!
The US "lemon laws" do not apply here, as the USA do not have the same statutory rights as we enjoy in the UK. If something is not of sufficient quality to do what it is supposed to do then you are entitled to a full refund, a replacement item or a repair at the supplier's expense.

You buy a CD from a shop for £12, it doesn't play properly. You take it back to the shop and they scratch their heads, then offer you another one that will take a few weeks to order or they'll offer to buy it back off you for £10. Would you be happy?

 

[hawk20]

A replacement is not a full refund and the rate of depreciation applied to the above story would make the car's value zero after only 18 weeks!
The US "lemon laws" do not apply here, as the USA do not have the same statutory rights as we enjoy in the UK. If something is not of sufficient quality to do what it is supposed to do then you are entitled to a full refund, a replacement item or a repair at the supplier's expense.

Please note I said full refund in kind.
Question is what does the law say here. Does it say they must give you one of the following -and they can choose which: - a full refund OR a replacement item OR a repair at the suppliers expense (in which case Merc offering him a brand new replacement car is fine) or does the law offer the customer a choice of a full refund, a replacement or a repair (in which case he could choose to have his money back -not necessarily the full retail price - we don't know how much he got off. Friend of mine got 7% off).

 

[gary350]

You need to read the article, the owner took his car back to his local dealer they said they had 8 cars with the same fault and it appears they where unable to correct it which is why he refused the replacement car, he did pay over £21K and the car was only 3 weeks old, as far as I am aware you should be able to get a full refund as the car was faulty but even What Car where unable to do so. I also could not understand the facts, oh its on page 113 of the sep issue when you are browsing in your local news agents. The sorry part is that there are other stories like this where the manufacturer or dealer comes up with the goods when What Car steps in but MB did not, tells its own story.

gary

 

[Shude]

The sorry part is that there are other stories like this where the manufacturer or dealer comes up with the goods when What Car steps in but MB did not, tells its own story.

Makes you wonder if there is more to the story then, most suppliers crumble when the press steps in!

 

[kensalriser]

Well, as with many things it seems the law is subject to a court's interpretation.

http://dti.gov.uk/consumers/Fact%20sheets/page24700.html

A consumer is entitled to a satisfactory repair or replacement or can demand a full refund 'within a reasonable period of time'. The 'reasonable period' is dependent on the nature of the goods and circumstances.

The consumer is entitled to a full refund if they have enjoyed no benefit from the goods, or a partial refund if they have. For the first six months the onus is on the supplier to prove that the goods were suitable for the intended purpose, after that and for up to six years the onus is on the customer to prove otherwise. (This means that a customer can seek damages for faults for up to six years after purchase, as long as the claim is reasonable - very useful information, like most people I've always assumed that if something goes kaput after 12 months you're stuffed, but not so).

So, if you've thrashed 10,000 miles out of a car in 11 months and it goes wrong, you can't reasonably argue you've enjoyed no benefit. However, in this case, unless the consumer has managed to drive all the way around the UK in 3 weeks, it looks as though he would have a very strong argument for a full refund.

In his position I'd be telling the dealership to stump up a full refund or they'll be in court trying to explain how I've enjoyed the benefit of a faulty car in three weeks. And my claim would then include additional damages for expenses, inconvenience, time and loss of use.

 

[glojo]

Makes you wonder if there is more to the story then, most suppliers crumble when the press steps in!

I think this might well be the nitty gritty of this issue. Have you noticed how the 'knockers' instantly pass judgement after only hearing one side of a STORY, and that is what it is, a story. Are they actually giving a balanced report, quoting from both sides???

We are currently reading about one member who is having problems with their SLK, it is highly possible they will not get a full refund, simply because of the length of time the owner has owned the vehicle, but I personally know of an SLK owner who rejected their car, received a FULL cash refund, was given a Mercedes demonstrator whilst they waited for a new BMW to be delivered!!!!!! Still never let the truth spoil a good STORY. The knockers will never listen as they simply do not want to hear.

If I owned a B-class and it was spec'd to my individual taste, I might accept a replacement new vehicle, providing it had EXACTLY the same specification, or better. However if I was disillusioned by the whole experience then it would have to be a FULL refund. Am I right in thinking that there has been case law where a rejected car had to be returned within an acceptable period???

John the anti knocker (not anti knockers )

 

[Shude]

This means that a customer can seek damages for faults for up to six years after purchase, as long as the claim is reasonable - very useful information, like most people I've always assumed that if something goes kaput after 12 months you're stuffed, but not so.

This needs to be advertised somewhere so that everyone knows it.

It is about time retailers in the UK realised their responsibilities! Remember folks: Warranty or no warranty you are still entitled to service up to a reasonable length of time after purchase.

A colleague of mine bought a TV for about £400, after 18 months it died. He took it back was told that the warranty had expired, he'd have to buy a new one. After a lot of shouting he left with a brand new TV - this costs the supplier nothing as they will presumably seek damages from the manufacturer anyway!

 

[Rory]

A colleague of mine bought a TV for about £400, after 18 months it died. He took it back was told that the warranty had expired, he'd have to buy a new one. After a lot of shouting he left with a brand new TV - this costs the supplier nothing as they will presumably seek damages from the manufacturer anyway!

Yep, I've had several things (including a three year old video recorder and a four year old car - when cars only had a one year warranty) repaired FOC. It's a lot of hassle though (the car, a Renault Clio, with broken rear springs, was probably the easiest).

 

[kensalriser]

John, people make comments and offer opinions based on the information supplied - this is a messageboard, not BBC news.

In this case the retailer offered a replacement and that's a clear admission of a serious fault. Bearing that in mind, the proposed refund is mean and I don't need ANY additional information to form that opinion.

I wonder if the shortfall between the purchase price and offered refund is the retailer's margin, by the way.

 

[glojo]

John, people make comments and offer opinions based on the information supplied - this is a messageboard, not BBC news.

Hi kensalriser,
I think your post was quite constructive, my point is we do not know the facts of this incident so it might be unfair to actually blame the dealership.

Does anyone here know if this new car was actually brand new, or a stock item, or indeed an ex demonstrator?

Does anyone here know if this was a cash deal, or was there a part exchange?

Going on from that theme, if it was a part exchange deal, was the part exchange a reasonable deal or was it a worthless car?

Was the £18,000 refund exclusive of the trade in vehicle, or did the dealer offer to return the trade in vehicle as well as the money?

I totally accept this is a forum where we enjoy very healthy debates, but it is sad how some members tend to instantly pass judgement on who is the guilty party. I am certainly NOT having a dig at you, (just better re-read your post ).......

Nope, just re-read your post and it is a fair observation which I would go along with.

In my own post I did query what is considered a 'reasonable time', I am certain I have read judgements where the courts have found in favour of one party, but I cannot remember the nitty gritties.

I think it great we can debate the what if type situations, I just do not like the guilty until proved innocent type mentality that sometimes jumps to the fore.

Incidentally I rejected a new V-class and was given a new W210 320CDI Elegance estate..... a very fair outcome I thought but that was six years ago.

Regards,
John

Hi guys,
Just found this snippet

 

[hawk20]

Incidentally I rejected a new V-class and was given a new W210 320CDI Elegance estate..... a very fair outcome I thought but that was six years ago.

Regards,
John

Hi guys,
Just found this snippet

Anyone who can get a 320cdi E class estate in exchange for a V class earns my total respect.

WARNING ALL READERS: - Don't ignore his tiny "snippet" link. It is the best summary of our rights under the law I have ever seen. I really, really wish forums had a sticky permanent section where really important information like this can be stored for reference by all who come to the forum and not just lost as the thread rapidly disappears. Kensalriser's summary was brilliant but I cannot get his link to work. Try: -
http://www.dti.gov.uk/consumers/Fact%20Sheets/page24700.html

 

[kensalriser]

That's the same link, for some reason I couldn't copy and paste it and had to to copy manually.