Car mis-sold by Audi dealership

noitsnotme

cw8825 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?


This has evolved as more information came to light:
 - It all began with "ordered a 40, but DVLA paperwork said 35, which was a DVLA error, the car is a 40, here is a photo of the badge"
 - Then "all the paperwork says 35 (quote, order form, invoice, DVLA), but the car is actually a 40 because here is a photo  of the badge"
So, was there only ever a photo of the mysterious 40 badge?  Where is the 40 badge now?

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?

OP hasn’t confirmed this. It’s only referenced to the in the 1 picture

In the very first post they say…

”Audi have currently offered to change the badge and compensate us with £1000.”

So it must have the 40 badge on it otherwise why would Audi offer to change it.

cw8825

noitsnotme said:

cw8825 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?


This has evolved as more information came to light:
 - It all began with "ordered a 40, but DVLA paperwork said 35, which was a DVLA error, the car is a 40, here is a photo of the badge"
 - Then "all the paperwork says 35 (quote, order form, invoice, DVLA), but the car is actually a 40 because here is a photo  of the badge"
So, was there only ever a photo of the mysterious 40 badge?  Where is the 40 badge now?

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?

OP hasn’t confirmed this. It’s only referenced to the in the 1 picture

In the very first post they say…

”Audi have currently offered to change the badge and compensate us with £1000.”

So it must have the 40 badge on it otherwise why would Audi offer to change it.

Thank you for pointing out my oversight

That is 1 explanation for why the OP took it

Desmond_Hume

cw8825 said:

noitsnotme said:

cw8825 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?


This has evolved as more information came to light:
 - It all began with "ordered a 40, but DVLA paperwork said 35, which was a DVLA error, the car is a 40, here is a photo of the badge"
 - Then "all the paperwork says 35 (quote, order form, invoice, DVLA), but the car is actually a 40 because here is a photo  of the badge"
So, was there only ever a photo of the mysterious 40 badge?  Where is the 40 badge now?

What actual badge was on the car when it was picked up?
What actual badge is on the car now?

OP hasn’t confirmed this. It’s only referenced to the in the 1 picture

In the very first post they say…

”Audi have currently offered to change the badge and compensate us with £1000.”

So it must have the 40 badge on it otherwise why would Audi offer to change it.

Thank you for pointing out my oversight

That is 1 explanation for why the OP took it

And if that is the case, for me, it’s why the badge is significant. The dealer has tried to palm this 35 off as a 40 whilst claiming the paperwork is wrong. 

HillStreetBlues

The OP was mis-sold, the salesman has committed fraud.

jimjames

DT03 said:

Every piece of paperwork we have states it’s a 35. Again we were told this was because it was registered wrongly. We flagged this up before we picked up the car and we still have the picture of the car with the 40 badge that was sent before pick up. We were ASSURED it was a 40 numerous times. IMO, the price we paid makes no difference, that was set by the salesman. The issue is that we did not receive what we were sold. He obtained the sale under false pretences.

It seems like if the garage had confirmed that it was a 40 you'd have been happy? If that's the case then the difference in power obviously isn't an issue as you've not mentioned that it doesn't drive as you expect so probably best to take the cash and enjoy what you have.

cw8825

HillStreetBlues said:

The OP was mis-sold, the salesman has committed fraud.

The ‘fraud’ is the photograph. It wasn’t miss old or anything along those lines

Everything else refers to the car as a 35. 

It had been there in plain sight. 

As said previously the OP knew from placing the order that it was a 35
they haven’t been overcharged and are not out of pocket
also they had use of the car until its service. Around 12 months

Why wouldn’t they have done the diagnostic test straight away?

from Audi point of view they have had an order for a 35, built a 35, sold a 35

HillStreetBlues

cw8825 said:

HillStreetBlues said:

The OP was mis-sold, the salesman has committed fraud.

The ‘fraud’ is the photograph. It wasn’t miss old or anything along those lines

Everything else refers to the car as a 35. 

It had been there in plain sight. 

As said previously the OP knew from placing the order that it was a 35
they haven’t been overcharged and are not out of pocket
also they had use of the car until its service. Around 12 months

Why wouldn’t they have done the diagnostic test straight away?

from Audi point of view they have had an order for a 35, built a 35, sold a 35

No, the fraud is the salesman gaining commission by selling a 35 car as a 40.  The salesman changed the badge to deceive the customer and lied about the paperwork being incorrect.
What a salesman's states is also part of the contract, the issue normally is proving it, but the dealership seems to have acknowledged the deception.
The bottom line is the salesman told the OP it was a 40 and it isn't.

LightFlare

Has it actually been established that the badging “error occurred at a certain time,place and by a specific person ?

The assumption is that it was the salesman / could it not have been at the build stage?

Still a crap salesperson not not necessarily  a fraudulent one (imo)

Unless there is clear evidence that it was done by that person with the intent to mislead or defraud someone

cw8825

HillStreetBlues said:

No, the fraud is the salesman gaining commission by selling a 35 car as a 40.  

The bottom line is the salesman told the OP it was a 40 and it isn't.

LightFlare said:

Still a crap salesperson not not necessarily  a fraudulent one (imo)

Unless there is clear evidence that it was done by that person with the intent to mislead or defraud someone

I agree with this about the salesman
It could be incompetence its not fraud.

The salesman has lost out on the commission on selling a higher priced car. by my logic not the greatest of fraudsters

HillStreetBlues said:

The bottom line is the salesman told the OP it was a 40 and it isn't.

Yet all the evidence suggest the car was a 35. Everything the OP signed was for a 35

Mildly_Miffed

Re-reading the original...

Was this a car they had in stock, or a factory order?
I'm reading it as it being stock. I'm suspecting the car was a 35 in all ways, but had been misbadged as a 40 - perhaps by the factory. It does happen. The OP looked at the car and said "I want that one". The paperwork said 35, the price said 35. Only the badge went against that.

The OP got the car they inspected and approved.