LeasePlan/Ayvens admitted “persistent issues” – unsafe VW ID.4, 6 videos, still trapped...

xilverhawk

I have a fair bit of evidence I'd be happy to share if anyone's interested?..a FULL timeline, email chains, complaint references and rejection letters (final responses).

 As I've said earlier this evening, the biggest kick in the teeth is how when this car's issues were laid bare and I attempted to use my rights under CRA205, I was just ignored and the request barely even acknowledged... Even though VW (via the local garage) had their one chance to fix the issues that I clearly document and couldn't. The only things they could do are replaced faulty modules (e.g. camera, SOS module)... All the other problems? Nothing. And these issues are widespread with this car, so much so that the big boss of VW admitted the software experience was a shambles and the midlife refresh of the car is fixing practically every fault and issue we experienced for 3 years.

Finally, let's not forget that they actually upheld my 2nd complaint on this particular subject last month admitting that the vehicle has had 'persistent issues'.... This complaint which *included my history of the two rejections under CRA*... Thus admitting I was right all along? 🤔

MattMattMattUK

xilverhawk said:

MattMattMattUK said:

xilverhawk said:

Hi all,  

Looking for advice and shared experience. After 3 years and £14k+, LeasePlan (now Ayvens) finally admitted in writing that my VW ID.4 has “persistent issues.” Their remedy? A 10% discount – while I keep paying £391.76/month for a car that’s unsafe.  

Evidence bundle:  

- 6 videos: 5 showing daily Android Auto failures, plus one catastrophic head‑unit blackout (lost speedometer while driving, Jan 2024).  

- Written admission Oct 2025: “persistent issues with the vehicle.”  

- Service records showing repeated resets/part swaps, never resolution.  

The litany since 2022:  

- Infotainment instability culminating in blackout  

- ACC/safety systems: phantom braking, false collision warnings, emergency braking when reversing  

- Windows malfunction (“Why do the windows go mental, Dad?”)  

- Android Auto: daily roulette across multiple failure modes  

(There’s more – TSR misreads, reversing sensors triggering on bushes – but you get the picture)  

Timeline of denials/admissions:  

- Sept 2023: CRA #1 rejected (“just reversing camera”)  

- Feb 2024: CRA #2 rejected again despite video evidence, £4,701 termination fee quoted  

- Oct 2025: Complaint finally upheld and Ayvens admits persistent issues.....
.....
offers 10% goodwill only  🤔

Impact:  

- Unsafe to drive (speedometer blackout, phantom braking)  

- Family disruption (school runs, courtesy car swaps, anxiety for kids)  

- Financial trap: hidden 50% termination formula only revealed after admission  

What I’ve done:  

- Trustpilot reviews 🟡⚫⚫⚫⚫ https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/6910fe4868df6fa1d1b9f80b

- Complaint escalated to Financial Ombudsman Service  👍🏾

- Complained to BVRLA ... Guess what, they backed their member 🙃

Questions for MSE community:  

1. Has anyone forced fair resolution using video evidence of safety‑critical faults?  

2. Does “continued use under protest” protect rights when the car is essential?  

3. What practical pressure works while Ombudsman processes drag on?  

I'd suggest Ayvens are banking on delay while I keep paying full price for admitted faults. Any advice from those who’ve fought similar battles would be hugely appreciated.  

Thanks,  

Xilverhawk  

I think your issue here is that you have never rejected the vehicle, if you rejected the vehicle then you would be able to exercise your rights on that basis, but you did not, you kept driving it. If you as a driver believe that a vehicle is unsafe then you should not be driving it, so you need to be mindful of admitting you were knowingly driving an "unsafe vehicle".

In regard to your questions.
1. Largely irrelevant, if you can evidence that a vehicle is unsafe then that is enough, however that also evidences you driving a vehicle which you know to be unsafe.
2. No, it does not protect any rights. The term "continued use under protest" means absolutely nothing, you did not reject the vehicle, you continued to use the vehicle despite claiming that it was unsafe, that would indicate that you do not really believe it is unsafe or you would not drive it. You also did not reject the vehicle.
3. You have the choice of the Ombudsman, then if you do not like the result taking Leaseplan to court, or you can bypass the Ombudsman and take Leaseplan to court. The motor ombudsman is slow and often sides with dealers/lease companies, court is slow and follows the law. 

They key point is, if you believe the vehicle is unsafe then you should not be driving it, you should be looking to reject the vehicle. However you mention that the lease has been 3+ years, how much longer is left on the lease? If you have or are about to hand the car back then the reality is you have little if any leverage which is largely caused by you continuing to drive the vehicle, in which case their 10% is probably all you will get.

look at the timeline...I distinctly mentioned CRA and rejecting the vehicle TWICE. They blatantly handwaved it the first time and completely ignored it the second time.

You did not actually reject the car though, that is the problem, rejecting a car means handing it and the keys back or parking it off the road and telling them it is available for collection and not driving it.

xilverhawk said:

Had no choice but to drive the car with work, family, 3 neurodivergent kids and a wife who was working frontline during COVID.

There is always a choice, you could have rented, bought a banger runabout etc. The problem is that "no choice" means you failed to reject the car, because you continued to use it and have done for three years. 

xilverhawk said:

I'm dealing with the financial ombudsman as it's the lease company I have beef with.... At least the agreement ends in march next year

I think ultimately you might struggle to get an improvement on the 10% you have already been offered, provided that is for the duration of the contract, not just the remining months from now.

xilverhawk said:

Finally, let's not forget that they actually upheld my 2nd complaint on this particular subject last month admitting that the vehicle has had 'persistent issues'.... This complaint which *included my history of the two rejections under CRA*... Thus admitting I was right all along? 🤔

The persistent issues factors into any compensation/reduction/rebate they might be willing to offer, or get offered via the Ombudsman and is positive in an evidential sense that they agree there are issues with the vehicle. What is the actual wording they used, because the fact that you are still in possession of and using the vehicle is also evidence that it has not been rejected. 

You also need to think about what you are aiming to get from them, 10% over of the whole lease(unclear if that is what they have already offered), more, if so how much more? Have you incurred any financial losses that you can evidence as part of the ombudsman's process?

xilverhawk

Cheers MattMattMattUK - honestly, your breakdown of proper rejection is the perfect blueprint for why it's impossible in practice.

You've nailed it: "handing it and the keys back or parking it off the road and telling them it is available for collection and not driving it." That's exactly what I should do. Except...

From home to Ayvens in Slough is 220 miles one way. Picture loading three neurodivergent kids at dawn for a 5-hour drive to hand keys to confused reception staff. No appointment system, no returns desk, just "Hi, here's my reject car, we need a lift back to Merseyside."

Or park it off-road and stop driving....where exactly? My driveway still counts as using it. Council car park means parking tickets.🥹

With special needs kids, missing one school run starts a domino effect that takes weeks to recover from. The "choice" you mentioned sadly isn't really worthy of the name - it's either textbook rejection and family meltdown, or document everything and keep the wheels turning.

Your post actually highlights the beautiful trap they've built. Make rejection technically correct but practically impossible, then point to continued use as acceptance. It's genius really - evil genius, but genius.

So now to the 10% "goodwill gesture" - it's off early termination and excess mileage fees. With the lease ending March, that's roughly 4 months left at £391.76/month. Their formula (which took three attempts to extract) is 50% of remaining rentals, so about £784 termination fee. Their 10% saves me... £78.

The mileage charges are harder to pin down, but I'm tracking over because of all the dealer trips, courtesy car collections, and detours when safety systems fail. Another unknown they'll spring at handback.The mileage charges are harder to pin down, but I'm for sure tracking over...largely in part because of COVID frontline work (wife was community care worker), all the dealer trips, courtesy car collections, and detours when safety systems fail. Another unknown they'll spring at handback. 

Here's the thing though - they've admitted "persistent issues" after three years of denial, then offer pocket change off their own penalties. I've paid over £14k for a car they now acknowledge was faulty throughout. It's like admitting you sold someone a three-legged horse then offering 10% off the vet bills.

Which brings me back to the admission - it validates that I was right to invoke CRA, even if I couldn't follow the impossible playbook. What I'm after is simple: clean handback, no fees. Their admission changes things - persistent faults should mean clean exit, not discounted penalties. But genuinely, what would you see as proportionate here? Because £78 off after three years of documented faults feels like they're having a laugh.

MattMattMattUK

xilverhawk said:

Cheers MattMattMattUK - honestly, your breakdown of proper rejection is the perfect blueprint for why it's impossible in practice.

You've nailed it: "handing it and the keys back or parking it off the road and telling them it is available for collection and not driving it." That's exactly what I should do. Except...

From home to Ayvens in Slough is 220 miles one way. Picture loading three neurodivergent kids at dawn for a 5-hour drive to hand keys to confused reception staff. No appointment system, no returns desk, just "Hi, here's my reject car, we need a lift back to Merseyside."

Or park it off-road and stop driving....where exactly? My driveway still counts as using it. Council car park means parking tickets.🥹

With special needs kids, missing one school run starts a domino effect that takes weeks to recover from. The "choice" you mentioned sadly isn't really worthy of the name - it's either textbook rejection and family meltdown, or document everything and keep the wheels turning.

The problem arises because the CRA is there to cover pretty much everything that a consumer can buy, from a car, to a private jet, to a toaster, because it is such a broad tool it also has plenty of areas where it is a sub-optimal tool. From the perspective of a the car Slough is a lot closer to me, but no one wants to go to Slough, ever! My aim would have been to leave the children with someone else, car down, train back, then prepare for a huge argument with the lease company whilst forcing the issue, but I understand that would not be easy for everyone. I will also admit that I am in a position to go and buy another car before I got the refund which would also be a different position. Parked on your drive would not count as using it, so long as you do not actually drive it.

xilverhawk said:
Your post actually highlights the beautiful trap they've built. Make rejection technically correct but practically impossible, then point to continued use as acceptance. It's genius really - evil genius, but genius.

It does certainly create difficulties with some products for sure, not really a trap, so much as putting them in a highly advantageous position based on there not being specific legislation or annexes. 

xilverhawk said:
So now to the 10% "goodwill gesture" - it's off early termination and excess mileage fees. With the lease ending March, that's roughly 4 months left at £391.76/month. Their formula (which took three attempts to extract) is 50% of remaining rentals, so about £784 termination fee. Their 10% saves me... £78.

The mileage charges are harder to pin down, but I'm tracking over because of all the dealer trips, courtesy car collections, and detours when safety systems fail. Another unknown they'll spring at handback.The mileage charges are harder to pin down, but I'm for sure tracking over...largely in part because of COVID frontline work (wife was community care worker), all the dealer trips, courtesy car collections, and detours when safety systems fail. Another unknown they'll spring at handback. 

Here's the thing though - they've admitted "persistent issues" after three years of denial, then offer pocket change off their own penalties. I've paid over £14k for a car they now acknowledge was faulty throughout. It's like admitting you sold someone a three-legged horse then offering 10% off the vet bills.

Which brings me back to the admission - it validates that I was right to invoke CRA, even if I couldn't follow the impossible playbook. What I'm after is simple: clean handback, no fees. Their admission changes things - persistent faults should mean clean exit, not discounted penalties. But genuinely, what would you see as proportionate here? Because £78 off after three years of documented faults feels like they're having a laugh.

On that basis I agree that the offer is derisory, 10% or more of the full lease value (initial payment, monthly payments) would be more likely to be what I would expect, as well as no early termination fees and other reasonable expenses paid (largely mileage to and from dealers). I would not expect them to wave excess mileage fees. If they asked for a figure I would probably go in at 40% of the full lease initially, with the expectation that they might settle around 20% and if it was at that percentage I would probably settle with not getting any expenses paid on top. 

Alderbank

MattMattMattUK said:

xilverhawk said:

MattMattMattUK said:

xilverhawk said:

Hi all,  

Looking for advice and shared experience. After 3 years and £14k+, LeasePlan (now Ayvens) finally admitted in writing that my VW ID.4 has “persistent issues.” Their remedy? A 10% discount – while I keep paying £391.76/month for a car that’s unsafe.  

Evidence bundle:  

- 6 videos: 5 showing daily Android Auto failures, plus one catastrophic head‑unit blackout (lost speedometer while driving, Jan 2024).  

- Written admission Oct 2025: “persistent issues with the vehicle.”  

- Service records showing repeated resets/part swaps, never resolution.  

The litany since 2022:  

- Infotainment instability culminating in blackout  

- ACC/safety systems: phantom braking, false collision warnings, emergency braking when reversing  

- Windows malfunction (“Why do the windows go mental, Dad?”)  

- Android Auto: daily roulette across multiple failure modes  

(There’s more – TSR misreads, reversing sensors triggering on bushes – but you get the picture)  

Timeline of denials/admissions:  

- Sept 2023: CRA #1 rejected (“just reversing camera”)  

- Feb 2024: CRA #2 rejected again despite video evidence, £4,701 termination fee quoted  

- Oct 2025: Complaint finally upheld and Ayvens admits persistent issues.....
.....
offers 10% goodwill only  🤔

Impact:  

- Unsafe to drive (speedometer blackout, phantom braking)  

- Family disruption (school runs, courtesy car swaps, anxiety for kids)  

- Financial trap: hidden 50% termination formula only revealed after admission  

What I’ve done:  

- Trustpilot reviews 🟡⚫⚫⚫⚫ https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/6910fe4868df6fa1d1b9f80b

- Complaint escalated to Financial Ombudsman Service  👍🏾

- Complained to BVRLA ... Guess what, they backed their member 🙃

Questions for MSE community:  

1. Has anyone forced fair resolution using video evidence of safety‑critical faults?  

2. Does “continued use under protest” protect rights when the car is essential?  

3. What practical pressure works while Ombudsman processes drag on?  

I'd suggest Ayvens are banking on delay while I keep paying full price for admitted faults. Any advice from those who’ve fought similar battles would be hugely appreciated.  

Thanks,  

Xilverhawk  

I think your issue here is that you have never rejected the vehicle, if you rejected the vehicle then you would be able to exercise your rights on that basis, but you did not, you kept driving it. If you as a driver believe that a vehicle is unsafe then you should not be driving it, so you need to be mindful of admitting you were knowingly driving an "unsafe vehicle".

In regard to your questions.
1. Largely irrelevant, if you can evidence that a vehicle is unsafe then that is enough, however that also evidences you driving a vehicle which you know to be unsafe.
2. No, it does not protect any rights. The term "continued use under protest" means absolutely nothing, you did not reject the vehicle, you continued to use the vehicle despite claiming that it was unsafe, that would indicate that you do not really believe it is unsafe or you would not drive it. You also did not reject the vehicle.
3. You have the choice of the Ombudsman, then if you do not like the result taking Leaseplan to court, or you can bypass the Ombudsman and take Leaseplan to court. The motor ombudsman is slow and often sides with dealers/lease companies, court is slow and follows the law. 

They key point is, if you believe the vehicle is unsafe then you should not be driving it, you should be looking to reject the vehicle. However you mention that the lease has been 3+ years, how much longer is left on the lease? If you have or are about to hand the car back then the reality is you have little if any leverage which is largely caused by you continuing to drive the vehicle, in which case their 10% is probably all you will get.

look at the timeline...I distinctly mentioned CRA and rejecting the vehicle TWICE. They blatantly handwaved it the first time and completely ignored it the second time.

 You did not actually reject the car though, that is the problem, rejecting a car means handing it and the keys back or parking it off the road and telling them it is available for collection and not driving it.

xilverhawk said:

Had no choice but to drive the car with work, family, 3 neurodivergent kids and a wife who was working frontline during COVID.

 ...you failed to reject the car, because you continued to use it and have done for three years. 

xilverhawk said:

I'm dealing with the financial ombudsman as it's the lease company I have beef with.... At least the agreement ends in march next year

xilverhawk said:

Finally, let's not forget that they actually upheld my 2nd complaint on this particular subject last month admitting that the vehicle has had 'persistent issues'.... This complaint which *included my history of the two rejections under CRA*... Thus admitting I was right all along? 🤔

That depends on where you live. It's not the case here in Scotland.

A dealer in Kilmarnock argued that when the consumer rejected the vehicle they should have stopped driving it, and the customer’s continued use of the vehicle suggested that they did not intend to reject the vehicle.  The customer drove a further 6,231 miles after he initially rejected the vehicle.
That was accepted initially by the courts but on appeal the Court of Session (our equivalent of the Court of Appeal) overturned the decision, saying
“The argument [from the garage] would result in placing a strict limitation on the consumer’s right under the Act, and in many circumstances, make it impossible for the consumer, who is in the weaker position, to insist in his rejection of the goods”.

In simple terms this means that here in Scotland if a customer attempts to reject a vehicle and the rejection is not accepted the customer can continue to use the vehicle albeit a deduction will be made for any mileage completed in the vehicle. 

https://www.legalsolutions4u.co.uk/2024/03/20/the-customer-can-continue-to-drive-the-vehicle-after-exercising-their-right-to-reject/

I think that is a commonsense ruling.

xilverhawk

Matt, genuinely appreciated - your framework cuts through the noise beautifully.

Quick math check: 20% of £18,800 total lease = £3,760, plus waived termination (£784) = £4,544. That would cover my projected excess mileage (~13k over @ 34.32p = £4,496) and achieve the clean exit we both see as fair.

What makes this especially relevant - FOS now has documented evidence of impact on three neurodivergent children. Every failed school run, every routine disruption, every meltdown during car swaps. That vulnerability context changes everything.

Your "derisory" assessment of their 10% is spot on. If Ayvens offered anything close to your 20% baseline tomorrow, I'd sign and move on. Three years of "persistent issues" (their words) is enough for everyone.

Thanks for thinking it through properly - this is exactly why MSE forums work. Real experience meeting real problems.

DeathByFluffy

Honestly, you need to make it as black and white as possible - return the car to them, drop the keys off at reception and then catch a train home. If that's not possible with the kids, have someone else watch them for the day or even better, pay a company such as Shiply to transport the vehicle back to the company. 

Buy yourself a runaround to use in the meantime. 

Unless you give a very clear message that you are rejecting the vehicle and are no longer using the vehicle, you're not really likely to get much further - the wheels with the FOS turn very slowly, and anything that obfuscates the process won't help you.