Rejecting a Brand New Car - unfit for purpose

Pollycat

Does anyone know how long the OP test drove this car and what sort of test drive did he/she do?

Or do we think he/she has got tired of (not) repeating himself/herself on that specific question?

Pollycat

Rotti wrote: »

The test drive didn't trigger any decision - there was no demonstrator available as it is such a new model.

Says it all, really. :cool:

neilmcl

Sounds like a case of "act in haste, repent at leisure" then. You clearly didn't do enough research, which would have included a test drive. So in effect you purchased blind, it wasn't to expectations and you're very lucky that the dealer took it back, because as stated it wouldn't have been legally classed as unfit for purpose, despite your protestations.

redped

neilmcl wrote: »

Sounds like a case of "act in haste, repent at leisure" then. You clearly didn't do enough research, which would have included a test drive. So in effect you purchased blind, it wasn't to expectations and you very lucky that the dealer took it back, because as stated it wouldn't have been legally classed as unfit for purpose, despite you protestations.

I couldn't agree more - I'm not knocking the OP for not having a test drive as no demonstrators were available (now that she finally answered the question), it's the way she keeps insisting the car isn't fit for purpose, whereas it's just a case of she doesn't like the car.

Pollycat

redped wrote: »

I couldn't agree more - I'm not knocking the OP for not having a test drive as no demonstrators were available (now that she finally answered the question), it's the way she keeps insisting the car isn't fit for purpose, whereas it's just a case of she doesn't like the car.

I'd never buy ANY car without a test drive.

I find that some designs give me a 'blind spot' caused by the door frame which I don't like when motorway driving.

Some car seats I just KNOW that I'm not going to be comfortable in for a long period of time.

And so on.

fthl

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.

Sounds like this was the reason you got your money back. I don't know where the 28 cooling off period has come from though. Was it a contractual offer made by the dealer?

The 14 day right of withdrawal under the finance agreement, if exercised, would not cancel any associated sales contract though.

redped

Pollycat wrote: »

I'd never buy ANY car without a test drive.

I find that some designs give me a 'blind spot' caused by the door frame which I don't like when motorway driving.

Some car seats I just KNOW that I'm not going to be comfortable in for a long period of time.

And so on.

I'm the same - no test drive, no sale - that way, I know what the car will be like before handing over the cheque. Part of my research is a thorough test drive, including on motorways.

Other people (e.g. the OP) obviously assume that they'll like the car and are happy to pay a lot of money without ever having driven it. It does strike me as strange that the OP did this, but thensaid "I actually did a LOT of research before deciding to buy this car - I don't spend that kind of money lightly".

Outpost

I dunno, seems to me that the OP bought something that they were, for whatever reasons, not happy with and was fortunately able to get their money back. £17,000 is not exactly pocket change, at least not to the vast majority of us, so it strikes me that if one is spending that amount of money they should be satisfied with their purchase. Yes you can argue that proper research wasn't done beforehand, but nonetheless a lot of people would simply keep the car and 'grin and bear it' because they lack the confidence to take it back to the dealership.

This might be unpopular but, regardless of the whole 'claiming it was unfit for purpose' issue or lack of research prior to buying, I say good on the OP for getting their money back on a car they were unhappy with.

redped

Outpost wrote: »

This might be unpopular but, regardless of the whole 'claiming it was unfit for purpose' issue or lack of research prior to buying, I say good on the OP for getting their money back on a car they were unhappy with.

I agree to a point - they were unhappy, and were able to get their money back which was good. However, the thread is called "Rejecting a brand new car - unfit for purpose", and the OP constantly referred to it as being unfit for purpose.

If the OP had come along and said "I bought a car, didn't like it and was able to return it" then we would be congratulating her. It was her insistence that it was unfit for purpose, in the face of a number of people pointing out that this was incorrect, that was the crux of the issue.

Rotti

redped wrote: »

I couldn't agree more - I'm not knocking the OP for not having a test drive as no demonstrators were available (now that she finally answered the question), it's the way she keeps insisting the car isn't fit for purpose, whereas it's just a case of she doesn't like the car.

That is absolutely not the case - we LOVED the car - duh! - that's why we bought it!! It is NOT a proper convertible and as such was mis-sold, which is probably why they took it back without any fuss.