Rejecting a Brand New Car - unfit for purpose

Amanita_2

Rotti wrote: »

Unless you test drove this car at any kind of decent speed you would not get the full horror of it - it is unfit for purpose as it cannot be driven as it should at anything over a maximum of 40mph with the roof off by anyone who has any feeling (or sense) from the neck up! It is also unacceptably noisy with the roof up at speed.

Surely you took it up to motorway speed though before buying it? When I was looking at the MX-5 the first place I headed was the M4 and drove it at 70 or so with the roof up and down and with a friend as a passenger.

I knew I'd love it at slower speeds but a high speed test drive is essential.

mamabuddah

1: whats the post got to do with consumer rights?....you haven't explained
2: are you sure you didn't just change your mind as its ugly?

Equaliser123

Rotti wrote: »

Unless you test drove this car at any kind of decent speed you would not get the full horror of it - it is unfit for purpose as it cannot be driven as it should at anything over a maximum of 40mph with the roof off by anyone who has any feeling (or sense) from the neck up!

It is certainly not "unfit for purpose" in a legal sense.

As others have said, you didn't seem to do your research.

I have a Lotus - bizarrely it is noisier with the roof on than off. I knew that when I bought it.

Pollycat

I think the OP is extrememly lucky the dealer agreed to the return of the car and gave him all but £70 of his outlay back.

And he's even more lucky that his 08 Tigra hadn't been sold in the 10 days he'd had the new car.

maninthestreet

Too much turbulence? I think the clue is in the name - Renault WIND. But surely you had a test drive before deciding to buy one?

Rotti

The £70 was lost on the original insurance, not the cost of the car - apparently if you cancel at 9 months these days you don't get anything back!

We actually rejected the car on the phone as soon as we arrived in Kent, so 7 days, and luckily the Tigra was still there. Had we waited until the Monday we would have lost it.

The whole point of this though is not who has the best convertible or how good a test drive you have - the car is being mis-sold purely on its looks and the clever roof, which is only actually 8 seconds faster than the Tigra, but impressive nonetheless. They say it "rewrites the rules for coupe-roadsters" and is an "exhilarating drive". For "exhilarating" read "unbearable" - and now some of the guys at the dealership have also tried it by taking it home they too have agreed it's a liability Renault really don't need. And yes, maninthestreet it really "does what it says on the tin"!!!!

Rotti

Equaliser123 wrote: »

It is certainly not "unfit for purpose" in a legal sense.

As others have said, you didn't seem to do your research.

I have a Lotus - bizarrely it is noisier with the roof on than off. I knew that when I bought it.

It is according to Consumer Direct - if a car is sold to tow a caravan it has to be able to do so, and if a car is sold as a convertible it should be able to be driven reasonably with the top down.

I actually did a LOT of research before deciding to buy this car - I don't spend that kind of money lightly - but it seems most of the reviews are based on its looks and not it's drivability.

We have a roadster specifically for fun, long-distance top-down driving and a 4WD for everything else. The first week we had the Tigra we did 1000 miles around Normandy and in mid-April we just did 800 miles on a trip to Holland. The last 210 of those miles was Harwich to Bath at night, at speed, with the top down all the way and it was fantastic! 20 miles was enough in the Wind!

Rotti

mamabuddah wrote: »

1: whats the post got to do with consumer rights?....you haven't explained
2: are you sure you didn't just change your mind as its ugly?

It has everything to do with consumer rights - you can take a car back just as anything else you buy that is unsatisfactory but how many people would actually do it? The dealer has never had this happen before and in 30 years of buying new and used cars we have never had this big a disappointment.

And it's not ugly - that's your opinion! We actually liked it a lot, especially in the Azurro Blue and are very disappointed that it did not live up to expectations - just its name!

Equaliser123

Rotti wrote: »

It is according to Consumer Direct - if a car is sold to tow a caravan it has to be able to do so, and if a car is sold as a convertible it should be able to be driven reasonably with the top down.

Wouldn't be the first time and certainly won't be the last that Consumer Direct are wrong.

The car is not faulty and I am sure that there are plenty of satisfied owners so how it can be "unfit for purpose" is beyond belief.

DCFC79

Forwandert wrote: »

Depends on the test drive, like the OP said it was the 300 mile round trip that put them off, if it was motorway driving it can get quite noisy whatever position the roof in, a normal around town test drive wouldn't have picked up how motorway driving would be.

[Edit] Just to add it is several years since i owned a convertible so the designs may have changed a little to improve on things.

yes i understand that, its a fundamental rule (if you havent driven a convertible before) you test drive it on a motorway, i guess it depends on what kind of driving you would do, if its mostly then yes test drive it on a m/way