Repairs, reasonable time, reject?
Discussion
Bought a approved used Bentley Conti GT in July (distance sale).
Pretty early on it became apparent that the car had a few electrical niggles with the seats and mirrors.
With approval from the supplying dealer, I took the car to my local Bentley dealer (not part of the same group as the supplier) who diagnosed the faults and determined they were pre-existing.
Repairs were claimed and accepted under the Bentley warranty, and I have since been waiting for the parts to arrive. They obviously blame the Ukrainian conflict for the delay, rather than their poor supply chain / business continuity management practices.
In the meantime I've been getting increasingly annoyed with the supplying dealer who just won't accept/understand they shouldn't have sold me a car with pre-existing faults, and that I should be compensated for the faff of getting these repairs done under my ownership and wasting considerable time. But I am not getting anywhere...
So my question is: as per rejection rules, I have to give the supplying dealer the opportunity to repair the car, which I have. However these repairs should be done in "reasonable time". 4 months on have now elapsed, is that enough "reasonable time", and should I push for a rejection (which the supplying dealer has so far ignored/underplayed)?
Pretty early on it became apparent that the car had a few electrical niggles with the seats and mirrors.
With approval from the supplying dealer, I took the car to my local Bentley dealer (not part of the same group as the supplier) who diagnosed the faults and determined they were pre-existing.
Repairs were claimed and accepted under the Bentley warranty, and I have since been waiting for the parts to arrive. They obviously blame the Ukrainian conflict for the delay, rather than their poor supply chain / business continuity management practices.
In the meantime I've been getting increasingly annoyed with the supplying dealer who just won't accept/understand they shouldn't have sold me a car with pre-existing faults, and that I should be compensated for the faff of getting these repairs done under my ownership and wasting considerable time. But I am not getting anywhere...
So my question is: as per rejection rules, I have to give the supplying dealer the opportunity to repair the car, which I have. However these repairs should be done in "reasonable time". 4 months on have now elapsed, is that enough "reasonable time", and should I push for a rejection (which the supplying dealer has so far ignored/underplayed)?
Their hands are tied, there's a shortage of parts for just about every manufacturer and your dealer isn't able to just magic up some components. GM stated they had 95k vehicles parked in lots waiting for extra parts before they could be sold to dealers, Ford announced they had around 60k vehicles in a similar spot and the list goes on for other marques.
It's unfortunate but it's not as if they're being unreasonable. However, I'd argue that if they can't give a realistic date for the parts to be available then you're within your rights to proceed with rejecting the car.
It's unfortunate but it's not as if they're being unreasonable. However, I'd argue that if they can't give a realistic date for the parts to be available then you're within your rights to proceed with rejecting the car.
matrignano said:
Door mirror mechanisms and some bits to do with the massage seat function.
Not sure fitting temporary pattern parts would really fly with an official dealer!
It doesn't exactly sound undrivable. I think I'd be asking for some plush free floor mats and a Bentley umbrella rather than aiming to reject the car.Not sure fitting temporary pattern parts would really fly with an official dealer!
ecs0set said:
It doesn't exactly sound undrivable. I think I'd be asking for some plush free floor mats and a Bentley umbrella rather than aiming to reject the car.
I agree, but that's not the point. The car was sold to me with features that are not working, and which they have to fix under consumer rights.It doesn't matter whether they make the car undrivable or not.
And to the other poster, the car is not off the road, it was given back to me while we wait for parts but I'm reticent to add many miles as it will make my rejection case harder the more I drive it...
matrignano said:
Bought a approved used Bentley Conti GT in July (distance sale).
Pretty early on it became apparent that the car had a few electrical niggles with the seats and mirrors.
With approval from the supplying dealer, I took the car to my local Bentley dealer (not part of the same group as the supplier) who diagnosed the faults and determined they were pre-existing.
Repairs were claimed and accepted under the Bentley warranty, and I have since been waiting for the parts to arrive. They obviously blame the Ukrainian conflict for the delay, rather than their poor supply chain / business continuity management practices.
In the meantime I've been getting increasingly annoyed with the supplying dealer who just won't accept/understand they shouldn't have sold me a car with pre-existing faults, and that I should be compensated for the faff of getting these repairs done under my ownership and wasting considerable time. But I am not getting anywhere...
So my question is: as per rejection rules, I have to give the supplying dealer the opportunity to repair the car, which I have. However these repairs should be done in "reasonable time". 4 months on have now elapsed, is that enough "reasonable time", and should I push for a rejection (which the supplying dealer has so far ignored/underplayed)?
Given the global issues with supply chain at the moment, which sees new cars on long lead times due to parts supply, let alone parts for the used market, what exactly do you expect the dealer to be doing differently?Pretty early on it became apparent that the car had a few electrical niggles with the seats and mirrors.
With approval from the supplying dealer, I took the car to my local Bentley dealer (not part of the same group as the supplier) who diagnosed the faults and determined they were pre-existing.
Repairs were claimed and accepted under the Bentley warranty, and I have since been waiting for the parts to arrive. They obviously blame the Ukrainian conflict for the delay, rather than their poor supply chain / business continuity management practices.
In the meantime I've been getting increasingly annoyed with the supplying dealer who just won't accept/understand they shouldn't have sold me a car with pre-existing faults, and that I should be compensated for the faff of getting these repairs done under my ownership and wasting considerable time. But I am not getting anywhere...
So my question is: as per rejection rules, I have to give the supplying dealer the opportunity to repair the car, which I have. However these repairs should be done in "reasonable time". 4 months on have now elapsed, is that enough "reasonable time", and should I push for a rejection (which the supplying dealer has so far ignored/underplayed)?
The dealer has recognised the faults with the car, ordered replacement parts and awaits their arrival upon which the car will be fixed. They don't have a magic wand to make things come faster from the manufacturer.
So, IMO, 4 months is not 'reasonable time' in this case as the parts aren't available in this time frame. Annoying as it is, wait for your parts, get your car fixed and enjoy it.
Tricky position...
The faults were - as you say - clearly pre-existing
You notified the seller of a fault within the 30 day 'automatic right to reject' period
You then seem to have accepted giving them a chance to repair the vehicle, rather than pushing for rejection, but they have failed to do that in - as you say - a reasonable time. More faults have since become apparent which we can also assume were pre-existing.
My position would probably be to give them a deadline of 1 day before the 6 month anniversary by which time the car must be fully fixed, or you will reject. If you can sensibly quote a few relevant bits of the CRA 2015 in your letter it may help
The faults were - as you say - clearly pre-existing
You notified the seller of a fault within the 30 day 'automatic right to reject' period
You then seem to have accepted giving them a chance to repair the vehicle, rather than pushing for rejection, but they have failed to do that in - as you say - a reasonable time. More faults have since become apparent which we can also assume were pre-existing.
My position would probably be to give them a deadline of 1 day before the 6 month anniversary by which time the car must be fully fixed, or you will reject. If you can sensibly quote a few relevant bits of the CRA 2015 in your letter it may help
ZX10R NIN said:
Or give them an alternative option of finding you (assuming you still like the car) another car before the 6 months are up, you may find that they're much more interested in doing this.
Yes indeed, this could be a pragmatic approach as long as it avoids Bentley dealerships playing Pass the Parcel with known lemonsZX10R NIN said:
Or give them an alternative option of finding you (assuming you still like the car) another car before the 6 months are up, you may find that they're much more interested in doing this.
I suggested I could switch to a car from another brand from the same dealer group.They came back with a crappy trade-in for my Bentley and then retail price on the other car!
I.e. a good deal only for them!
matrignano said:
I suggested I could switch to a car from another brand from the same dealer group.
They came back with a crappy trade-in for my Bentley and then retail price on the other car!
I.e. a good deal only for them!
Asking to switch to a different brand plus other comments you have made about your Bentley suggest you have an element of buyer's remorse?They came back with a crappy trade-in for my Bentley and then retail price on the other car!
I.e. a good deal only for them!
Some of this may be quite reasonably a result of the issues and your opinion on the supplying dealer's / local dealer's / Bentley's efforts to resolve them. I suspect not all of it?
By all means, aim to reject the car but if you have simply decided you want something else, I'd expect the supplying dealer to pick up on that and tailor their response accordingly.
ecs0set said:
Asking to switch to a different brand plus other comments you have made about your Bentley suggest you have an element of buyer's remorse?
Some of this may be quite reasonably a result of the issues and your opinion on the supplying dealer's / local dealer's / Bentley's efforts to resolve them. I suspect not all of it?
By all means, aim to reject the car but if you have simply decided you want something else, I'd expect the supplying dealer to pick up on that and tailor their response accordingly.
These issues and how difficult the dealer is being, are bringing back very bad memories of trying to fix my previous Audi.Some of this may be quite reasonably a result of the issues and your opinion on the supplying dealer's / local dealer's / Bentley's efforts to resolve them. I suspect not all of it?
By all means, aim to reject the car but if you have simply decided you want something else, I'd expect the supplying dealer to pick up on that and tailor their response accordingly.
(official dealer messing me about for a year and finally suggesting my only option to fix a leaky engine was to replace the engine at £15k! Ended up fixing it at an Indie who just replaced a leaky PCV valve)
I quite simply have enough of VAG now
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff