Rejecting a Brand New Car - unfit for purpose

redped

Rotti wrote: »

I actually did a LOT of research before deciding to buy this car - I don't spend that kind of money lightl

It doesn't sound like your research extended to giving the car a good test drive, at the sort of speeds you'd normally be driving at.

One minute of googling found this from Top Gear's review: "The windscreen top rail is reasonably slim too, so the sun catches your bonce in the approved manner. But those fat rear buttresses block the view and make Y-junctions tricky. Worse, they stir up (or something else stirs up) a lot of wind buffeting at high speed."

If I'd read this in a review of a car I was interested in, I'd know what to expect on my test drive.

Rotti wrote: »

They say it "rewrites the rules for coupe-roadsters" and is an "exhilarating drive". For "exhilarating" read "unbearable"

Sounds like typical advertising blurb, most of which is economical with the truth.

Rotti wrote: »

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?

You still haven't told us exactly on what grounds you rejected the car as being not fit for purpose. If you bought an umbrella and it leaked, that would be unfit for purpose. But you bought a convertible, and weren't happy with the amount of turbulence at motorway speeds. That just show you're unhappy with the car at motorway speeds, not that the car is unfit for purpose.

I assume there was paperwork involved in returning the car - will you tell us exactly what grounds you used for rejecting the car? I'm amazed the garage cancelled the purchase without asking for specific details of why the car wasn't suitable.

Rotti

redped wrote: »

You still haven't told us exactly on what grounds you rejected the car as being not fit for purpose. If you bought an umbrella and it leaked, that would be unfit for purpose. But you bought a convertible, and weren't happy with the amount of turbulence at motorway speeds. That just show you're unhappy with the car at motorway speeds, not that the car is unfit for purpose.

I assume there was paperwork involved in returning the car - will you tell us exactly what grounds you used for rejecting the car? I'm amazed the garage cancelled the purchase without asking for specific details of why the car wasn't suitable.

I believe I covered that in my post at 9.42 if you read it? If you cannot drive it as a convertible and it gives you a headache and earache it is not fit for purpose - as a saloon car with the roof up it is still very noisy and overpriced!

We rejected the car as completely unfit to drive as a convertible and unfit for purpose. There is a 28 day cooling off period anyway, so I'm told, and there was a 14 day colling off period for the finance. The finance was cancelled and the whole deal reversed. And of course they asked for details of the car being unsuitable - that was all covered in the inital phone call. But having tried the car themselves now they are in complete agreement so I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself!

Equaliser123

Rotti wrote: »

I believe I covered that in my post at 9.42 if you read it? If you cannot drive it as a convertible and it gives you a headache and earache it is not fit for purpose - as a saloon car with the roof up it is still very noisy and overpriced!

It IS fit for purpose though. You didn't understand what a convertible is like.

Mine leaks - but, again, that is par for the course on the particular car.

Pollycat

Rotti wrote: »

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.

You might have done a lot of research before buying but - despite numerous posters asking the question - you still haven't told us what sort of test drive you did and for how long.

Rotti wrote: »

We rejected the car as completely unfit to drive as a convertible and unfit for purpose. There is a 28 day cooling off period anyway, so I'm told, and there was a 14 day colling off period for the finance. The finance was cancelled and the whole deal reversed. And of course they asked for details of the car being unsuitable - that was all covered in the inital phone call. But having tried the car themselves now they are in complete agreement so I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself!

I'm not sure if you mean you think you have to keep repeating yourself on here but maybe if you answered the question most people have asked about the actual test drive that triggered your decision to buy this car, maybe that would be the end of it. :cool:

Rotti

Equaliser123 wrote: »

It IS fit for purpose though. You didn't understand what a convertible is like.

Mine leaks - but, again, that is par for the course on the particular car.

YES I DO!!!!! What part of "I have had 2 Tigras over 6 years" did you not understand?? And I have driven an MGF and been driven in other convertibles - which is why I like to drive one!! And if you like your leaky Lotus, fine, but presumably it is an OLD Lotus not brand new and if it was new and leaked you would take it back to be fixed? We had a leak in the Tigra but it was fixed under the guarantee - cars leak occasionally but this one is BADLY DESIGNED - that's different!

Pollycat

Rotti wrote: »

YES I DO!!!!! What part of "I have had 2 Tigras over 6 years" did you not understand?? And I have driven an MGF and been driven in other convertibles - which is why I like to drive one!! And if you like your leaky Lotus, fine, but presumably it is an OLD Lotus not brand new and if it was new and leaked you would take it back to be fixed? We had a leak in the Tigra but it was fixed under the guarantee - cars leak occasionally but this one is BADLY DESIGNED - that's different!

How long did you test drive this car and what sort of test drive did you do?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

redped

Rotti wrote: »

I believe I covered that in my post at 9.42 if you read it?

I did read your 9.42 post, where you say "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"

All I keep hearing is that you didn't like the car, not that it is unfit for purpose. Taking the legal view, it IS fit for purpose. My Z3 had a lot of wind turbulence at 70+, but that was to be expected. I fail to see how 40+ is the maximum speed any "normal" person (i.e. someone who has feeling or sense from the neck up) a Wind could be driven.

Will you accept that the Wind just wasn't for you? I see a lot of boy racer cars, tarted up with lowered suspension, huge tail fins, etc., and I accept that sort of car isn't for me. However, I don't say they're unfit for purpose. My current car only has two seats, but if I wanted to carry two passengers I wouldn't describe it as being unfit for purpose. It only does 25mpg around town, but again I don't describe it as being unfit for purpose.

But having tried the car themselves now they are in complete agreement so I hope I don't have to keep repeating myself!

If what you are saying is true, then it sounds like Renault has a major problem on it's hands, as all Wind customers will be returning their cars as unfit for purpose.

TBH, it sounds like the car wasn't what you expected (and the garage has been very accommodating in cancelling the sale). While that can be disappointing, it is not the same as saying the car is unfit for purpose.

Finally, despite being asked repeatedly, you still haven't told us the sort of test drive you had.

redped

It looks like Janet is spreading the word about her Wind problem (no pun intended )

http://fwd.channel5.com/cars/small-sports/renault-wind

Equaliser123

Rotti wrote: »

And if you like your leaky Lotus, fine, but presumably it is an OLD Lotus not brand new and if it was new and leaked you would take it back to be fixed? We had a leak in the Tigra but it was fixed under the guarantee - cars leak occasionally but this one is BADLY DESIGNED - that's different!

No, you don't understand.

Lotus are sold as having weather protection - not waterproof. I really do think you know very, very little about law or cars.

Rotti

Pollycat wrote: »

You might have done a lot of research before buying but - despite numerous posters asking the question - you still haven't told us what sort of test drive you did and for how long.



I'm not sure if you mean you think you have to keep repeating yourself on here but maybe if you answered the question most people have asked about the actual test drive that triggered your decision to buy this car, maybe that would be the end of it. :cool:

The test drive didn't trigger any decision - there was no demonstrator available as it is such a new model. BUT - before all the holier-than-thou brigade start finger wagging - because both the models of cars we have bought since 1998 were brand new models and the dealers had no demonstrators we have bought them (two of each) without testing them and loved ever mile driven. Both the Ford Pumas and Vauxhall Tigras lived up to expectations and were fun, economical cars to drive, both in town and on the open road. If the Tigra had been this bad who knows - we might have taken that back too, but as it was our first convertible we probably would have thought it was supposed to be that way and put up with it. As it turned out we bought a second one because it was so good. Of course the dealers now have a demonstrator so hopefully nobody else will be caught out in thinking Renault can design a roadster!