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

born_again

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

SyedJafri01

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

Wonka_2

SyedJafri01 said:

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

Given you’ve all the evidence/reference cases you need then seems we’re all wasting our time here

Let us know when you get a court date and how you get on 

SyedJafri01

Wonka_2 said:

SyedJafri01 said:

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

Given you’ve all the evidence/reference cases you need then seems we’re all wasting our time here

Let us know when you get a court date and how you get on 

This thread is all about helping others who are in the same boat, as it clearly suggests: 'If you are in the same boat, let's talk.' I have done my research, spent money, and I just want to help other 502-affected e-tron owners

born_again

SyedJafri01 said:born_again said:

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

This thread is all about helping others who are in the same boat, as it clearly suggests: 'If you are in the same boat, let's talk.' I have done my research, spent money, and I just want to help other 502-affected e-tron owners

Can you then answer questions asked please 👍

Or given your research we are wasting our time.

sheramber

SyedJafri01 said:

Wonka_2 said:

SyedJafri01 said:

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

Given you’ve all the evidence/reference cases you need then seems we’re all wasting our time here

Let us know when you get a court date and how you get on 

This thread is all about helping others who are in the same boat, as it clearly suggests: 'If you are in the same boat, let's talk.' I have done my research, spent money, and I just want to help other 502-affected e-tron owners

It doesn't look like any of the other 502 owners are on this forum so  there's nobody to talk.

SyedJafri01

sheramber said:

SyedJafri01 said:

Wonka_2 said:

SyedJafri01 said:

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

Given you’ve all the evidence/reference cases you need then seems we’re all wasting our time here

Let us know when you get a court date and how you get on 

This thread is all about helping others who are in the same boat, as it clearly suggests: 'If you are in the same boat, let's talk.' I have done my research, spent money, and I just want to help other 502-affected e-tron owners

It doesn't look like any of the other 502 owners are on this forum so  there's nobody to talk.

Great then, you're not an owner but you're still talking.....

born_again

SyedJafri01 said:

This thread is all about helping others who are in the same boat, as it clearly suggests: 'If you are in the same boat, let's talk.' I have done my research, spent money, and I just want to help other 502-affected e-tron owners

In reality if you want to help others from the back of your money & research. Then by far the best place to post is on Audi forums where there is a greater chance of these other 502 owners looking or posting. 👍

Grumpy_chap

The OP may be interested in this thread, though the outcome was simply stated as "successful" with little detail of any reasoning by Audi so extrapolating to a precedent is difficult:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6543190/is-range-on-ev-reason-to-return-under-short-term-right-to-reject-of-consumer-rights-act/p1

Okell

SyedJafri01 said:

born_again said:

SyedJafri01 said:

visidigi said:

You've done 25k miles without concern, so the car was fit for purpose and for the journey you traveled in that 25k.

So there's no way you will get a full refund, there will be deductions, at a reasonable rate.

I would hazard a guess VWFS aren't being very accommodating because your demands are unreasonable when considering...

The amount of use you had prior to defect being reported.
The amount of distance covered without concern.
The deposit is usually absorbed and lost (amortized if you will).

Something reasonable to me at least would be the deposit and a few months of payments as goodwill for the apparent hassle during the 5000 miles you've used it since being made aware of the issue. (future loss of use doesn't count as you would be paying monthlies for that privilege anyway).

you're right. I am however, not requesting a full refund, but I would like VWFS to acknowledge that a PCP agreement contributes to the equity if the customer decides to purchase the car at the end of the contract. This is why PCP is typically more expensive than a lease. While there are various ways to calculate fair usage, it appears that the retailer bases their calculation on a method that suits them, while VWFS shows no interest in addressing this matter at all. Additionally, the battery remains under warranty, yet neither the retailer, manufacturer, nor the finance company is willing to replace it under warranty. For reference, Hyundai invested over £9 million to replace faulty batteries, but it seems VWFS and Audi disregard UK Laws entirely.

So how long have you had the car & what was the PCP annual mileage agreement?

Paid over 30k but they are offering only 4k

PCP is in effect just hiring a car, but you have the option to buy at the end, or hand it back for nothing. So can't see any refund due from VWFS.

Even if you went the S75A they will say no breech of contract, as the manufacture has applied a fix for the issue. 

Please refer to Clegg v. Olle Andersson (t/a Nordic Marine) [2003] EWCA Civ 320. Although it deals with a boat rather than a car, it is an important precedent that confirms that a consumer can reject goods even after six months if they can prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

Key Points of the Case:

1. The consumer rejected a defective boat seven months after purchase.
2. The court held that the consumer had the right to reject even after six months because the fault (an imbalance in the keel) was inherent and made the boat unfit for its purpose.
3. The burden of proof shifts to the consumer after the initial six months, but the court confirmed that consumers could still reject goods if they prove the fault was present at the time of sale.

This case is frequently cited when consumers attempt to reject vehicles after six months under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Although not a car-related case, it firmly establishes the right to reject goods when inherent defects are proven, regardless of the time passed.

But that case - as you've presented it - doesn't decide anything that everybody here doesn't already know. 

The difficulty you have is that if VWFS continue to refuse to accept your rejection of the vehicle, you'll either have to complain to FOS and/or sue them in court