Audi e-Tron Owners: It's Time to Start Rejecting Your Vehicles! (Audi Recall: 93U9 – Faulty Battery)

Grumpy_chap

SyedJafri01 said:

Thank you for your perspective. I agree, it's not fair that only the deposit is refunded. Given the significant depreciation and the car's inability to meet its intended purpose, simply refunding the deposit does not adequately address the issue.

The recall has severely impacted the car's value and usability, particularly for long-range journeys, which was a primary reason for choosing this vehicle in the first place. Additionally, the fact that the car is incompatible with the fast/rapid chargers available at most motorway services further limits its practicality, especially for the kind of travel it was meant to support.

In light of these factors, a more equitable solution would involve not just refunding the deposit, but also addressing the monthly payments made thus far. The total amount paid should be considered in any resolution, given that the car has depreciated more than expected and can no longer serve its intended purpose.

You may well be correct about the appropriate refund including some of the monthlies in addition to the original deposit and in addition to clearing the remaining finance. 
Unfortunately, the information you have shared about the car and the price paid has been opaque at best and that makes it very difficult for anyone else reading the forum to make a comment as to the reasonableness of the whole offer.

All we have so far is that you paid "over" £30k and have been offered something including the £4k deposit back.
The thread also indicates a "from" £60k car.

What would you get for simply selling the car to a purchasing service?  

You are now also introducing additional issues about unable to use chargers at motorway services.  This is most perplexing.
What type of charger / connector is the car fitted with?
What chargers at which service stations have you been unable to use?
It is my understanding that the e-trons are all fitted with CCS so could use any public charger...

Alderbank

SyedJafri01 said:

Alderbank said:

Where does Volkswagen Financial Services come into the picture?

Alderbank said:

Where does Volkswagen Financial Services come into the picture?

SyedJafri01 said:
 Financed through VWFS, they are the legal owner of the vehicle. However, they are unwilling to uphold the Consumer Rights Act, likely due to their interest-earning motives

If VWFS provided linked credit for more than £60,260 then they have no liability for the vehicle under section 75a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which could explain why they don't seem interested.

How much was the linked credit for?

SyedJafri01

Wonka_2 said:

There’s a fair bit missing from the story to be able to help you (and there don’t seem to be loads of supporters jumping out to generate a class action or similar) 

When did you buy ?
On what basis - PCP/loan ?
Personal or business ? 

How long ago ?
How many miles ? 

When was ‘fault’ first registered ? 

Given the car presumably still belongs to the finance company then what’s their formal response been to your request to reject ? You’ll need their agreement (and insinuating that they’re biased as they’re part of VW isn’t likely to help your cause) 

Thank you for your response and for raising some important questions. I understand that there's a lot to unpack here, so I'll do my best to provide a more detailed overview of the situation:

1. Purchase Details:

   • Date of Purchase: August 2021
   • Purchase Basis: The vehicle was acquired through a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) agreement.
   • Personal or Business: The vehicle was purchased for personal use.
   • Current Mileage: The vehicle currently has approximately 70,000 miles on the clock. The fault was first noticed when the car had around 65,000 miles.

2. Fault Registration: The fault relates to a recall notice issued by Audi regarding the high-voltage battery. The recall was first communicated to me in February 2024. Audi instructed me to limit the vehicle's charge to 80%, and more recently, I discovered that the vehicle is restricted from using rapid chargers, which has severely impacted its functionality.

3. Finance Company Response: The vehicle is indeed under a PCP agreement with VWFS (Volkswagen Financial Services). I have formally requested to reject the vehicle due to the inherent fault, which Audi, the retailer, and the finance company have all acknowledged. However, the retailer (Harwoods Audi) has only offered to refund the deposit amount, which is not in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. VWFS, on the other hand, has not been as responsive as I would have expected, given their role as the legal owner of the vehicle. This has led to significant frustration and the perception that the finance company is not adequately upholding my consumer rights.

I hope this additional information provides a clearer picture of the situation. My main concern is ensuring that all parties involved—Audi, the retailer, and the finance company—adhere to UK consumer law, particularly regarding the right to reject a faulty product.

born_again

I wonder if it relates to this.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/audi-recalls-e-tron-electric-suvs-for-fire-risk-a5306993546/#:~:text=Vehicles Recalled&text=2020-2022 Audi E-Tron,fix is not yet available.

This is a US recall site & UK Gov recall site does not list the e-tron SUV 55 Quattro As you need to know which Q version it is, as I listed previously.

SyedJafri01

Grumpy_chap said:

SyedJafri01 said:

Thank you for your perspective. I agree, it's not fair that only the deposit is refunded. Given the significant depreciation and the car's inability to meet its intended purpose, simply refunding the deposit does not adequately address the issue.

The recall has severely impacted the car's value and usability, particularly for long-range journeys, which was a primary reason for choosing this vehicle in the first place. Additionally, the fact that the car is incompatible with the fast/rapid chargers available at most motorway services further limits its practicality, especially for the kind of travel it was meant to support.

In light of these factors, a more equitable solution would involve not just refunding the deposit, but also addressing the monthly payments made thus far. The total amount paid should be considered in any resolution, given that the car has depreciated more than expected and can no longer serve its intended purpose.

You may well be correct about the appropriate refund including some of the monthlies in addition to the original deposit and in addition to clearing the remaining finance. 
Unfortunately, the information you have shared about the car and the price paid has been opaque at best and that makes it very difficult for anyone else reading the forum to make a comment as to the reasonableness of the whole offer.

All we have so far is that you paid "over" £30k and have been offered something including the £4k deposit back.
The thread also indicates a "from" £60k car.

What would you get for simply selling the car to a purchasing service?  

You are now also introducing additional issues about unable to use chargers at motorway services.  This is most perplexing.
What type of charger / connector is the car fitted with?
What chargers at which service stations have you been unable to use?
It is my understanding that the e-trons are all fitted with CCS so could use any public charger...

Thank you for your response and for engaging in this discussion. To clarify some of the technical points:

The Audi e-Tron SUV 55 Quattro is indeed equipped to support charging speeds of up to 155KW using CCS connectors, which allows for rapid charging. However, due to a restriction related to the ongoing recall issue, the vehicle can now only support charging speeds of up to 50KW. This means that any charger exceeding 50KW, such as those typically found at motorway service stations, will not be able to charge the vehicle effectively.

This limitation significantly impacts the vehicle's functionality, particularly on long journeys where fast charging is essential. This is one of the core issues leading to my request for a full refund, as the vehicle can no longer be used as originally intended.

I hope this provides a clearer understanding of the situation.

SyedJafri01

Alderbank said:

SyedJafri01 said:

Alderbank said:

Where does Volkswagen Financial Services come into the picture?

Alderbank said:

Where does Volkswagen Financial Services come into the picture?

SyedJafri01 said:
 Financed through VWFS, they are the legal owner of the vehicle. However, they are unwilling to uphold the Consumer Rights Act, likely due to their interest-earning motives

If VWFS provided linked credit for more than £60,260 then they have no liability for the vehicle under section 75a of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which could explain why they don't seem interested.

How much was the linked credit for?

Thank you for your input. The linked credit provided by VWFS for the Audi e-Tron SUV 55 Quattro was less than £60,260. Therefore, Section 75A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 would still apply, making VWFS jointly liable with the retailer for any breaches of contract, including issues related to the vehicle’s quality and fitness for purpose.

Despite this, VWFS has shown little interest in engaging with the issue or addressing the significant inconvenience caused by the vehicle's faults. Given that both the retailer and manufacturer have acknowledged the fault, I would have expected VWFS to take a more proactive role in resolving the situation.

SyedJafri01

born_again said:

I wonder if it relates to this.

This is a US recall site & UK Gov recall site does not list the e-tron SUV 55 Quattro As you need to know which Q version it is, as I listed previously.

Thank you for sharing that link. I have already consulted with the DVSA regarding why this issue is not showing as an active recall on the UK Gov recall site. According to the DVSA, since Audi has implemented a restriction limiting the charge to 80%, they do not consider it an active recall anymore, and therefore, the DVSA is satisfied with the current status.

However, my vehicle does fall under the category of "2019-2022 Audi E-Tron Quattro SUVs manufactured before March 11, 2022," as mentioned in the recall notice. Despite this, the restriction imposed by Audi does not address the underlying issue effectively, and the fact that this isn’t being treated as an active recall is concerning, to say the least.

Grumpy_chap

SyedJafri01 said:

Wonka_2 said:

There’s a fair bit missing from the story to be able to help you (and there don’t seem to be loads of supporters jumping out to generate a class action or similar) 

When did you buy ?
On what basis - PCP/loan ?
Personal or business ? 

How long ago ?
How many miles ? 

When was ‘fault’ first registered ? 

Given the car presumably still belongs to the finance company then what’s their formal response been to your request to reject ? You’ll need their agreement (and insinuating that they’re biased as they’re part of VW isn’t likely to help your cause) 

Thank you for your response and for raising some important questions. I understand that there's a lot to unpack here, so I'll do my best to provide a more detailed overview of the situation:

1. Purchase Details:

   • Date of Purchase: August 2021
   • Purchase Basis: The vehicle was acquired through a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) agreement.
   • Personal or Business: The vehicle was purchased for personal use.
   • Current Mileage: The vehicle currently has approximately 70,000 miles on the clock. The fault was first noticed when the car had around 65,000 miles.

2. Fault Registration: The fault relates to a recall notice issued by Audi regarding the high-voltage battery. The recall was first communicated to me in February 2024. Audi instructed me to limit the vehicle's charge to 80%, and more recently, I discovered that the vehicle is restricted from using rapid chargers, which has severely impacted its functionality.

3. Finance Company Response: The vehicle is indeed under a PCP agreement with VWFS (Volkswagen Financial Services). I have formally requested to reject the vehicle due to the inherent fault, which Audi, the retailer, and the finance company have all acknowledged. However, the retailer (Harwoods Audi) has only offered to refund the deposit amount, which is not in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. VWFS, on the other hand, has not been as responsive as I would have expected, given their role as the legal owner of the vehicle. This has led to significant frustration and the perception that the finance company is not adequately upholding my consumer rights.

I hope this additional information provides a clearer picture of the situation. My main concern is ensuring that all parties involved—Audi, the retailer, and the finance company—adhere to UK consumer law, particularly regarding the right to reject a faulty product.

You have not said what the "purchase price" was on the PCP.  That is important as it influences your rights with the finance provider (rather than Dealer) as indicated by @Alderbank

If this car was on PCP from August 2021, when does the PCP term expire?
You still have the option to run to the end of the original PCP term and then simply hand the car back for the MGFV and walk away.  (Selling outside the PCP may yield you a better return.)
For the purpose of simply completing the PCP and walking away, raising faults may not be wise as you don't want to give the finance company any grounds to not honour the original PCP deal.

Is the £4k the Dealer has offered really in connection with "rejection" of the vehicle?
OR, is the £4k the amount the Dealer will buy the vehicle for, over and above clearing any remaining finance (which will be quite a chunk)?

Was the recall notice a direct communication to you from Audi?  Has the vehicle been into Audi for remedial action under the recall notice?

SyedJafri01

Grumpy_chap said:

SyedJafri01 said:

Wonka_2 said:

There’s a fair bit missing from the story to be able to help you (and there don’t seem to be loads of supporters jumping out to generate a class action or similar) 

When did you buy ?
On what basis - PCP/loan ?
Personal or business ? 

How long ago ?
How many miles ? 

When was ‘fault’ first registered ? 

Given the car presumably still belongs to the finance company then what’s their formal response been to your request to reject ? You’ll need their agreement (and insinuating that they’re biased as they’re part of VW isn’t likely to help your cause) 

Thank you for your response and for raising some important questions. I understand that there's a lot to unpack here, so I'll do my best to provide a more detailed overview of the situation:

1. Purchase Details:

   • Date of Purchase: August 2021
   • Purchase Basis: The vehicle was acquired through a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP) agreement.
   • Personal or Business: The vehicle was purchased for personal use.
   • Current Mileage: The vehicle currently has approximately 70,000 miles on the clock. The fault was first noticed when the car had around 65,000 miles.

2. Fault Registration: The fault relates to a recall notice issued by Audi regarding the high-voltage battery. The recall was first communicated to me in February 2024. Audi instructed me to limit the vehicle's charge to 80%, and more recently, I discovered that the vehicle is restricted from using rapid chargers, which has severely impacted its functionality.

3. Finance Company Response: The vehicle is indeed under a PCP agreement with VWFS (Volkswagen Financial Services). I have formally requested to reject the vehicle due to the inherent fault, which Audi, the retailer, and the finance company have all acknowledged. However, the retailer (Harwoods Audi) has only offered to refund the deposit amount, which is not in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. VWFS, on the other hand, has not been as responsive as I would have expected, given their role as the legal owner of the vehicle. This has led to significant frustration and the perception that the finance company is not adequately upholding my consumer rights.

I hope this additional information provides a clearer picture of the situation. My main concern is ensuring that all parties involved—Audi, the retailer, and the finance company—adhere to UK consumer law, particularly regarding the right to reject a faulty product.

You have not said what the "purchase price" was on the PCP.  That is important as it influences your rights with the finance provider (rather than Dealer) as indicated by @Alderbank

If this car was on PCP from August 2021, when does the PCP term expire?
You still have the option to run to the end of the original PCP term and then simply hand the car back for the MGFV and walk away.  (Selling outside the PCP may yield you a better return.)
For the purpose of simply completing the PCP and walking away, raising faults may not be wise as you don't want to give the finance company any grounds to not honour the original PCP deal.

Is the £4k the Dealer has offered really in connection with "rejection" of the vehicle?
OR, is the £4k the amount the Dealer will buy the vehicle for, over and above clearing any remaining finance (which will be quite a chunk)?

Was the recall notice a direct communication to you from Audi?  Has the vehicle been into Audi for remedial action under the recall notice?

Thank you for your follow-up.

Walking out of the PCP is not something I ever intended because I was planning to keep the car for a longer period of time. The PCP was chosen specifically because it would allow me to eventually own the vehicle, something leasing wouldn’t have offered. I take great care of my cars, and knowing I could own it after the term was important to me.

The current market value of the car has significantly decreased due to the inherent fault, making it much lower than the MGFV on the PCP contract, which means simply returning the car isn’t a viable option for me.

Regarding the dealer’s offer, they and Audi’s executive office have labeled it as "rejection has been considered" but are only offering to refund the deposit.

The so-called remedial action under the recall only limits charging to 80% of the already reduced capacity, effectively reducing it to 64% of the original capacity, and further restricts the type of chargers that can be used. This turns a car, originally purchased for its long-range capabilities, into something that struggles to function beyond short city commutes.

isplumm

so how long has the PCP got to go - you've had it for 3 years now - also what is your annual mileage meant to be for the PCP - 70k miles in 3 years seems high?

Thanks Mark