Car mis-sold by Audi dealership

cymruchris

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

In essence, an employee of the dealership has lied/tried to cover up a mistake/fraudulently misled the customer here, and there's photographic proof, an email trail and a blooming big badge stuck to the back of the car. That in my mind would put the dealership squarely in the frame as this employee was acting on their behalf. Should there be any subsequent loss as a result of this coming to light, and being put right by the dealer - then those losses should be claimed back from the employee (or likely now ex-employee). There are ways and means to achieve this.

If I were the OP - I would be wanting my 40.

So either:

I would ask them to take the car back, cancel the contract and give appropriate compensation, so that I could go off and get another vehicle elsewhere.

Or:

Supply a brand new 40 as originally requested for the remaining term of the existing contract, and an appropriate compensation payment.

Personally - What I wouldn't accept is a relatively small amount and then keep the car I already had. 

All of this hypothetically stuff doesn't help - as hypothetically it could have been a pink elephant that the OP originally ordered and not an Audi after all.

It does appear as though the OP is drip feeding a little though - so would be good to hear what Audi offer when the info is available.

HillStreetBlues

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

In essence, an employee of the dealership has lied/tried to cover up a mistake/fraudulently misled the customer here, and there's photographic proof, an email trail and a blooming big badge stuck to the back of the car. That in my mind would put the dealership squarely in the frame as this employee was acting on their behalf. Should there be any subsequent loss as a result of this coming to light, and being put right by the dealer - then those losses should be claimed back from the employee (or likely now ex-employee). There are ways and means to achieve this.

If I were the OP - I would be wanting my 40.

So either:

I would ask them to take the car back, cancel the contract and give appropriate compensation, so that I could go off and get another vehicle elsewhere.

Or:

Supply a brand new 40 as originally requested for the remaining term of the existing contract, and an appropriate compensation payment.

Personally - What I wouldn't accept is a relatively small amount and then keep the car I already had. 

All of this hypothetically stuff doesn't help - as hypothetically it could have been a pink elephant that the OP originally ordered and not an Audi after all.

It does appear as though the OP is drip feeding a little though - so would be good to hear what Audi offer when the info is available.

I agree, I wouldn't consider taking the £1k as that's not even a 2.5% discount

Hoenir

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

Simply because all new vehicle information itself is held within a fully integrated system. No one hand writes an invoice. 

Herzlos

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

It's a key detail to the whole process though.

If they bought a 35 for the price of a 35 and were mislead into think it's a 40, then they were lied to but haven't suffered any material loss. Especially since they didn't notice the performance difference.
If they bought a 40 for the price of a 40 and it turned out to be a 35, then they were lied to and have suffered a material loss.

It sounds like the former, and it sounds like they've been stitched up by the dealer given that all the paperwork seems to say it's a 35 it'll be a nightmare trying to get any significant compensation/action. Hopefully the OP took the £1k and moved on with their life.

I'm still curious as to how a 35 came out of the factory with a 40 badge, and if whether what they paid would have been reasonable for a 40 since it seems to be list price for a 35.

Money_Grabber13579

Hoenir said:

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

Simply because all new vehicle information itself is held within a fully integrated system. No one hand writes an invoice. 

But mistakes still happen though. Every time I’ve tried to insure my car since new, I put in the registration plate and it comes back with my car details. Expect they are wrong. It always tells my my car is a manual. But it’s automatic. It’s definitely not a manual with an automatic gearstick.

So mistakes do happen and I don’t think it is unreasonable for a customer to believe what they are told when querying why the invoice says 35 rather than 40. It’s a completely plausible answer that it is just a mistake and I think any reasonable person would have believed they were still getting a 40, especially when shown a picture of their car with a 40 badge on the back of it! Everything else is irrelevant.

DT03

Just a quick update.  We have been informed that they are still working things through… Not sure why it’s taking this long but we are about a month into this and after 8 weeks, if head office still haven’t done anything, we are going to get the ombudsman involved (that’s the time requirement to involve them in a dispute). Again thanks to everyone for their contributions and I apologise for dipping in and out of this but I don’t have a lot of spare time at the moment.

cymruchris

Herzlos said:

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

It's a key detail to the whole process though.

If they bought a 35 for the price of a 35 and were mislead into think it's a 40, then they were lied to but haven't suffered any material loss. Especially since they didn't notice the performance difference.
If they bought a 40 for the price of a 40 and it turned out to be a 35, then they were lied to and have suffered a material loss.

It sounds like the former, and it sounds like they've been stitched up by the dealer given that all the paperwork seems to say it's a 35 it'll be a nightmare trying to get any significant compensation/action. Hopefully the OP took the £1k and moved on with their life.

I'm still curious as to how a 35 came out of the factory with a 40 badge, and if whether what they paid would have been reasonable for a 40 since it seems to be list price for a 35.

But it’s not. If the employee has stated in written communication that it’s a 40, provided photographic evidence it’s a 40, then that in itself aside from any other detail is enough to say the customer was indeed supposed to be driving a 40. If the employee was absolutely wrong/mistaken/fraudulent - none of that is the OP’s concern. The dealer employed this person, who was acting on their behalf, and so it’s the dealer that needs to put it right.

If everything was hearsay, he said she said, and there were no written records then maybe a lot of the other questions being asked here would be relevant. However, the  OP has stated very clearly that there’s a written email trail from ‘the dealership’ outlining the fact that their 40
was a 40 and that it was an admin error, that along with a big shiny photo of the 40 badge that’s still attached to the car sent by the dealership representative. 

Keep the argument simple at this stage. 

The OP has evidence that they should be driving a 40 - the dealership need to resolve that issue, and then deal with the repercussions internally. 

Herzlos

Maybe I'm incorrect, and we're 14 pages in so it's possible, but I thought all of the written paperwork says 35 and most (if not all) of the mentions of the 40 were verbal, with the exception of a photo of a 40 badge on the car?

If there's a proper paper trail that a 40 was ordered and the 35 on the paperwork was a mistake, then there's a much stronger case for... something... like the value difference between the 35 and 40 + some good will gesture.

Hoenir

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Hoenir said:

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

Simply because all new vehicle information itself is held within a fully integrated system. No one hand writes an invoice. 

But mistakes still happen though.

Be a meltdown within Audi if they weren't recording vehicles dispatched off the production line correctly into their system. From what's been said the vehicle information isn't being disputed. The tale boils down to a corrupt sales person and an (easily changed) badge. What's most interesting is that the sales person had nothing to gain personally other than commission for selling the vehicle.  

cw8825

Hoenir said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

Hoenir said:

cymruchris said:

It's interesting that so many people are asking what was the car you paid for, what was this, what was that.

Simply because all new vehicle information itself is held within a fully integrated system. No one hand writes an invoice. 

But mistakes still happen though.

Be a meltdown within Audi if they weren't recording vehicles dispatched off the production line correctly into their system. From what's been said the vehicle information isn't being disputed. The tale boils down to a corrupt sales person and an (easily changed) badge. What's most interesting is that the sales person had nothing to gain personally other than commission for selling the vehicle.  

And presumably he got less commission because he sold a 35