Rejecting a Brand New Car - unfit for purpose

Flyboy152

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!

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!

Sorry, I missed this one. What a load of male cow droppings.

There has never, ever been and never, ever will be, any colling-off period for buying a car.

Pollycat

Rotti wrote: »

I hope one day you find yourself stuck with something that's well below acceptable and think "why didn't someone warn me?". The answer will probably be - "They did but you weren't listening!"

I would never be stuck with soemthing as expensive as a £17K car that in my opinion was well below acceptable as I'd never commit to buy without an extensive test drive in all conditions.

Like redped, I'm pleased you got your money back and also like redped says, I take your word that the dealer was happy to take the car back (well done that dealership).

But also like redped, I can't understand why you're still like a dog with a bone on this:

Rotti wrote: »

The reason for pursuing this with Renault is to get them to admit the car has problems and stop others who may be less able to stand up for their rights getting stuck with one. Isn't that partly what this whole website is supposed to be about after all? Or is it just for disbelievers to get into slanging matches and name calling because they can't accept the evidence in front of them?

Just because the car didn't suit you doesn't mean that all buyers of this car will be unhappy with it.

And presumably now that the car is not so new, dealerships will have one (or access to one) for potential customers to test drive and decide for themselves.

fthl

Rotti wrote: »

TBH although I knew about the finance, I wasn't actually aware of it until after all of this took place - it was mentioned by someone at the Vauxhall Dealership.

There has never, ever been and never, ever will be, any colling-off period for buying a car.

there could be, it is just very unlikely. Buying in the home, at a distance from one of the 'net providers. It could happen, although I agree it is extremely unlikely for the vast majority of the population.

The law used to run that you had a cooling off period for contracts involving finance agreed away from business premises. The law recently changed to give a right to withdraw on most finance contracts wherever they were entered into. ANother change is that whilst previously an associated contract for goods or services was also cancelled, now it isn't. So consumers have more rights to cancel a finance agreement, but there has been no corresponding increase in a consumer's right to cancel the actual contract being financed.

Based on the OP comments I reckon that the dealership arsed up the law here and thought that the right to withdraw also cancelled the sales contract too. I think the OP was very lucky.

Rotti

redped wrote: »

Not by me, so it'd be better if you save your attitude for them.

I see you only chose to read half of that sentence which actually read "If I have attitude it is because I am sick of being called a liar - ""

Yes, when you bought it - you obviously didn't like it when you sold it back to the dealer!

Are you deliberately not recognising the difference between "not liking" something and something being "impossible to drive properly in the manner advertised"??

We liked the car a LOT - until it nearly blew our heads off! And we were extremely upset when it had to go back. Other people need to be aware of the failings and this is what I am pushing for Renault to investigate as per the contents of their email (which I apparently made up).

Rotti

Pollycat wrote: »

I would never be stuck with soemthing as expensive as a £17K car that in my opinion was well below acceptable as I'd never commit to buy without an extensive test drive in all conditions.

So if you bought a £150k house would you expect to live in it for a period before you bought it? Not possible - just as a test drive wasn't possible but we liked it enough from looks, most of the reviews we'd seen and sitting in/playing with the showroom model. We weren't to know it was such a calamitous design and would not have been able to tell from an urban test drive anyway.

Like redped, I'm pleased you got your money back and also like redped says, I take your word that the dealer was happy to take the car back (well done that dealership).

Thanks for that at least - have a word with Flyboy!!

But also like redped, I can't understand why you're still like a dog with a bone on this:
Just because the car didn't suit you doesn't mean that all buyers of this car will be unhappy with it.

Most people who have previously owned a convertible and are looking to "upgrade" WILL have a problem with it and need to be aware that it might not be the car for them. If you've never driven top down before you would not know any different and would accept it as normal.

And presumably now that the car is not so new, dealerships will have one (or access to one) for potential customers to test drive and decide for themselves.

Yes they do now have a demonstrator, but knowing what they know now having also driven it and declared it **** they are going to insist on a LONG test drive, so will probably have it for a while.

redped

Rotti wrote: »

TBH although I knew about the finance, I wasn't actually aware of it until after all of this took place - it was mentioned by someone at the Vauxhall Dealership.

So now we've got a Vauxhall dealer involved in the story as well - where does that fit in to the equation? Oh and before you point out the obvious in your usual manner, I am fully aware that the Vauxhall dealership only sells cars, they don't actually manufacture them.

Maybe if you had explained the full timeline, together with the various parties (Renault dealer, Renault UK, and now a Vauxhall dealer) people would have been able to follow exactly what has been happening. You have dropped bits of information in at various points of the thread, and then childishly berated people who ask for clarification.

Rotti wrote: »

Other people need to be aware of the failings and this is what I am pushing for Renault to investigate as per the contents of their email (which I apparently made up).

I don't recall saying you made the Renault emails up. Others may have, but I didn't.

Arg

It would be funny if the car was just missing the part* at 0:28 on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLBLhCR5v0

*which looks like an afterthought to noise problems.

Rotti

redped wrote: »

So now we've got a Vauxhall dealer involved in the story as well - where does that fit in to the equation? Oh and before you point out the obvious in your usual manner, I am fully aware that the Vauxhall dealership only sells cars, they don't actually manufacture them.

Maybe if you had explained the full timeline, together with the various parties (Renault dealer, Renault UK, and now a Vauxhall dealer) people would have been able to follow exactly what has been happening. You have dropped bits of information in at various points of the thread, and then childishly berated people who ask for clarification.



I don't recall saying you made the Renault emails up. Others may have, but I didn't.

And I didn't say you did!!
Right here we go and try to keep up.......
28th April - collected Renault Wind from dealership
5th May - did first long journey at the end of which called dealership to reject car and ask if they still had the Tigra (made of course by Vauxhall)
9th May - returned Renault to dealership for full refund as agreed and recovered Tigra. Went to Vauxhall dealer on way home to tell them we had it back and book it in for its MOT. Someone there mentioned the 28 day thing in passing but not completely sure what that was all about. That was the only reason they were ever mentioned in answer to another post.

Rotti

Arg wrote: »

It would be funny if the car was just missing the part* at 0:28 on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLBLhCR5v0

*which looks like an afterthought to noise problems.

It was an afterthought and I believe it was available in Italy (don't take that as gospel though) but it really does look awful doesn't it? And due to where it is I'm thinking you would probably have to remove it before closing the roof, but not sure on that either. I saw it on the Honest John review when I posted mine. Over here it's not even an optional extra but would you really want to drive a car around looking like that anyway? Windbreaks are usually placed behind the front seats and nobody gives them a second glance but this "afterthought", which has obviously been put on to try to resolve the problem we had, would certainly be a head turner - but for all the wrong reasons!!

Equaliser123

Rotti wrote: »

Missed the irony there then? You really do take things literally don't you? And he was not suggesting I was over-reacting - he openly called me a liar and still refuses to accept the truth when it is put in front of him - without names! You are both as bad as each other!

Who cares?