Rejecting Punto

[poggy]

I think that although it is not mentioned as a specific item, a lot of testers will put it under general heading or restraint system.

It would be interesting to know if anybody appealed to the ministry of transport and what happened.

 

[NumanR]

Poggy if you failed my car for an airbag light on I would get you struck off. Testers cant take it on themselves to fail things that are not a testable item. There is no check for airbags, it cannot be brought in by the back door through restraint system as the tester has no knowledge if the vehicle has pretensioners or not.

 

[poggy]

Poggy if you failed my car for an airbag light on I would get you struck off. Testers cant take it on themselves to fail things that are not a testable item. There is no check for airbags, it cannot be brought in by the back door through restraint system as the tester has no knowledge if the vehicle has pretensioners or not.

I know people who's cars have failed as a safety issue, so it does happen and I assume the testers haven't all be struck off. Even Haynes list a airbag light not working as a fail, so it seems the subject of debate.

http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/...TView?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001

it is also on http://www.carcareclinic.com/faq.asp


However about the pretensioner comment you are wrong (it's in the MOT tester manual), if you read the VOSA MOT Special Notice 4/98 the tester is reminded to advise the vehicle presenter that pre-tensioners have been activated (by indication of flag), however that alone is not a reason to fail unless damage has been caused during activation such as strands broken. Based on that I would assume that they expect a tester to know if a car has pre-tensioners. To be honest if they can't tell whether a car has or hasn't got them, they shouldn;t be testing car as they aren't difficult to spot and they should find out as they have to inspect the seat belt system as part of the MOT.

 

[sumplug]

This is not true at all, Fiat tried to repair our car 4 times before we rejected it. We got a courtesy car while the new one was built. In fact the law states you have to allow the dealer a reasonable amount of time to repair the fault before you can reject it.

You also have to reject the car from the dealer and not Fiat (UK) as the dealer is the one with whom you have the supply agreement. They will go back to Fiat and "agree" compensation to repair and re-sell the car. I think in our case they got £1,500.00 from Fiat as a contribution towards replacing the car for us.

Good Luck

the fact that the car is 10 months old will make a rejection claim void. the law is very bad in this respect. it says that the owner has a reasonable time to reject the car. now what is classed as reasonable? there was a test case about 18 months ago where the judge decided that reasonable is 3 months or 3000 miles. he also stated because the owner had let the garage do all the work, the owner was excepting the car. the law states presently you can reject the car as long as you do not agree on repairs. having a car replaced after 4 attempts is down to a generous dealer. legally they are not obliged because they have attempted to repair the goods. thats the consumer law.

 

[poggy]

the fact that the car is 10 months old will make a rejection claim void. the law is very bad in this respect. it says that the owner has a reasonable time to reject the car. now what is classed as reasonable? there was a test case about 18 months ago where the judge decided that reasonable is 3 months or 3000 miles. he also stated because the owner had let the garage do all the work, the owner was excepting the car. the law states presently you can reject the car as long as you do not agree on repairs. having a car replaced after 4 attempts is down to a generous dealer. legally they are not obliged because they have attempted to repair the goods. thats the consumer law.

Sorry your wrong, the law states you must give the garage the opportunity to repair the car before rejecting it. I do a lot of contract law and when we went through the process of rejecting our car we had legal advise. Believe me both the dealer and Fiat wouldn't have done it out of the kindness of their heart. The judge cannot set a precedent on this matter as the type and reason for rejection varies too much. Although he may not get a replacement for free and may have to contribute a small amount of money, he can still reject it.

Here is a extract from the sale of goods which also covers cars.

You have to invoke Sale of Goods Act 1979 as modified by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, contending that the supplier is in breach of contract to you for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. Appeal Court Case law (Bernstein v/s Palmerston Motors 1987) has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so. The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. And the supplier (in the case of a car the dealer principal of the dealership) must be sent a letter by recorded delivery detailing why the car has been rejected as not "of satisfactory quality". Case law (Rogers v/s Parrish 1987) has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund, though lesser refunds, taking account of mileage covered, may be obtained outside that period. The price you pay compared to market value will be taken into account. So if you buy a cheap car on trade terms you cannot reject it under the Act. And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect.

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 does not mention rejection. However it does reverse the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

 

[sumplug]

Sorry your wrong, the law states you must give the garage the opportunity to repair the car before rejecting it. I do a lot of contract law and when we went through the process of rejecting our car we had legal advise. Believe me both the dealer and Fiat wouldn't have done it out of the kindness of their heart. The judge cannot set a precedent on this matter as the type and reason for rejection varies too much. Although he may not get a replacement for free and may have to contribute a small amount of money, he can still reject it.

Here is a extract from the sale of goods which also covers cars.

You have to invoke Sale of Goods Act 1979 as modified by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, contending that the supplier is in breach of contract to you for supplying a car which was not "of satisfactory quality", or did not remain so for a reasonable period of time. Appeal Court Case law (Bernstein v/s Palmerston Motors 1987) has held that the supplier must be given three chances to rectify the fault for which the goods are rejected and must have failed to do so. The goods must be returned to the supplier together with all keys and paperwork. And the supplier (in the case of a car the dealer principal of the dealership) must be sent a letter by recorded delivery detailing why the car has been rejected as not "of satisfactory quality". Case law (Rogers v/s Parrish 1987) has put a limit of 6 months on the time you can successfully reject a car and obtain a full refund, though lesser refunds, taking account of mileage covered, may be obtained outside that period. The price you pay compared to market value will be taken into account. So if you buy a cheap car on trade terms you cannot reject it under the Act. And if you buy a cheap car (under £2,000) on retail terms from a trader, you cannot reasonably expect it to be perfect.

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 does not mention rejection. However it does reverse the burden of proof so that if goods go faulty within six months after purchase it is deemed they were faulty at the time of purchase and the trader has the onus of proving that the item is not defective due to a manufacturing defect.

not true.
if you think the car is "not fit for the purpose", then you can reject the car straight away. if you carry on using it, then this in law means you are "accepting it". when a car is new, it is for the consumer to prove in the first 6 months that the car is not fit and proper. after 6 months and no longer then 6 yrs in the uk except scotland, it is for the seller to prove the car is fit and proper. at no time is the manufacturer responsible. the seller is sole responsible. there is also the subject of credit agreement as well. the fact with credit agreement is the credit company owns the car from new, so i would notify them that the car is a dud. and park it up and don't use it. this will make your rejection claim much stronger.

 

[JTD Monkey]

The dealer's are AMC, Chelmsford and Glyn Hopkin (Chadwell Heath). Both have given me courtesy cars, collected and picked up but it's all moot if the car is still not as it should be.

I have no personal knoweldge of either dealer, but from a location point of view you are not that far from DBS Desira in Hertford. Personally, I would speak to their aftersales team as I always found them top-notch; I'd ignore the Fiat dealer around the corner from work and pass another while driving 30 miles to DBS. I suspect they will be able to help you.

They exceed the abilities of my Mercedes and Audi dealers...

 

[sumplug]

I have no personal knoweldge of either dealer, but from a location point of view you are not that far from DBS Desira in Hertford. Personally, I would speak to their aftersales team as I always found them top-notch; I'd ignore the Fiat dealer around the corner from work and pass another while driving 30 miles to DBS. I suspect they will be able to help you.

They exceed the abilities of my Mercedes and Audi dealers...

yes, desira i use for my tipo parts. very knowledgable alround. recommend highly.

 

[Alex]

I've not read the whole thread, but I have experiance working with a car manufacturer and dealing with rejected vehicles, basically the longer you leave it the harder it becomes. IMO you've left it far to late. If you really wanted rid of the car you should have started things moving within the first month (30 days to be precise). I hope you resolve your issues, and get what you want, but you're going to have to fight very hard.

 

[T14086]

I know people who's cars have failed as a safety issue, so it does happen and I assume the testers haven't all be struck off. Even Haynes list a airbag light not working as a fail, so it seems the subject of debate.

http://www.haynes.co.uk/webapp/wcs/...TView?langId=-1&storeId=10001&catalogId=10001

it is also on http://www.carcareclinic.com/faq.asp

They are WRONG...spoke to MOT official today,airbags ARE NOT part of MOT.



p.s.Although Haynes books are handy I think we all know they can be....well optomistic shall we say

 

[sumplug]

They are WRONG...spoke to MOT official today,airbags ARE NOT part of MOT.



p.s.Although Haynes books are handy I think we all know they can be....well optomistic shall we say

airbags will be part of the test soon though

 

[NumanR]

Poggy, owing to the thread subject, I will just say I dont agree with you and hope that we can get back on thread.

Regarding rejection, sometimes customers suddenly realise that they cannot afford the car on finance and look for an easy way out. Now this does go on and sometimes a dealer has to see if this is the case. Regarding time periods, this is unclear, but certainly a year is a reasonable time to allow a dealer to rectify faults that have occurred repeatedly. Note the wording repeatedly. If a vehicle has several different faults this is quite a different matter to one repeated fault that cannot be rectified.

Most dealers will try and come to a compromise, even if the faults or circumstances are not legally capable of rejection. A happy customer is better than an unhappy customer, and an unhappy customer generates more publicity! An exchange of vehicle, with a similar mileage or specification, may be satisfactory, this is voluntary from the dealer and not a legal requirement.
Also dont expect the earth, I know of one customer at another dealer who wants to reject a vehicle of 25k miles, nearly two years old and will only accept a vehicle costing 7000 pounds above the new price of his vehicle as an exchange. Dream on.

I still say negotiation is the way to proceed as far as possible.

 

[kaflinkle]

Regarding rejection, sometimes customers suddenly realise that they cannot afford the car on finance and look for an easy way out. Now this does go on and sometimes a dealer has to see if this is the case. Regarding time periods, this is unclear, but certainly a year is a reasonable time to allow a dealer to rectify faults that have occurred repeatedly. Note the wording repeatedly. If a vehicle has several different faults this is quite a different matter to one repeated fault that cannot be rectified.

Most dealers will try and come to a compromise, even if the faults or circumstances are not legally capable of rejection. A happy customer is better than an unhappy customer, and an unhappy customer generates more publicity! An exchange of vehicle, with a similar mileage or specification, may be satisfactory, this is voluntary from the dealer and not a legal requirement.
Also dont expect the earth, I know of one customer at another dealer who wants to reject a vehicle of 25k miles, nearly two years old and will only accept a vehicle costing 7000 pounds above the new price of his vehicle as an exchange. Dream on.

I still say negotiation is the way to proceed as far as possible.

The car was bought outright so no finance was necessary or no easy way out is sought.

The problems are repeated (airbag failure, squeak/rattle from rear end, dashboard chipped) and they existed just weeks after the car was bought and has been with the dealership many times. There were other faults as well but they were rectified.

10 months is ample time to rectify any problem, I have also been inconvenianced and lost money going back and forth to the dealership or waiting for them to deliver a courtesy car and this is just not good enough. If I had bought a second hand car then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I am always open to compromise but feel it has now gone on long enough. For the price I paid (£11,600) I could've gotten any car of the same type but I chose another Punto because my MKI was absolutely superb, no rattles, no airbag failures, it went to Paris, all over Ireland, all over England without any problems at all. I never had to take it to get repaired once. I wish I'd have kept it now.

Some people say FIAT stands for 'Fix It Again Tomorrow' and know I know why.

 

[NumanR]

Not suggesting any financial problem with yourself just illustrating that cars are "rejected" for many reasons.
If the problems, are repeated and cannot be repaired then you need to come up with a deal with the dealership. I am sure they can come up with an exchange, a refund I think is unlikely.

 

[sumplug]

Not suggesting any financial problem with yourself just illustrating that cars are "rejected" for many reasons.
If the problems, are repeated and cannot be repaired then you need to come up with a deal with the dealership. I am sure they can come up with an exchange, a refund I think is unlikely.

quite agree.

 

[kaflinkle]

Really would like a refund as I have no confidence in an FIAT car anymore but I apppreciiate how this might not happen.

The problem being that my car is a 1.4 and I was informed by the dealership when buying that an 05 reg 1.4 Eleganza is hard to come by, only 4 were in the country and they found one for me. I have no idea if they were telling me porkies or not but if I were to get a replacement, i'd want the same spec.

But we'll see what happens.

Thanks for everyone's advice and input, it is appreciiated.

 

[sumplug]

Really would like a refund as I have no confidence in an FIAT car anymore but I apppreciiate how this might not happen.

The problem being that my car is a 1.4 and I was informed by the dealership when buying that an 05 reg 1.4 Eleganza is hard to come by, only 4 were in the country and they found one for me. I have no idea if they were telling me porkies or not but if I were to get a replacement, i'd want the same spec.

But we'll see what happens.

Thanks for everyone's advice and input, it is appreciiated.

remember, a new punto comes out in feb/march this yr. so they will have a few unsold cars to get rid of. might be lucky for you.

 

[poggy]

not true.
if you think the car is "not fit for the purpose", then you can reject the car straight away. if you carry on using it, then this in law means you are "accepting it". when a car is new, it is for the consumer to prove in the first 6 months that the car is not fit and proper. after 6 months and no longer then 6 yrs in the uk except scotland, it is for the seller to prove the car is fit and proper. at no time is the manufacturer responsible. the seller is sole responsible. there is also the subject of credit agreement as well. the fact with credit agreement is the credit company owns the car from new, so i would notify them that the car is a dud. and park it up and don't use it. this will make your rejection claim much stronger.

I don't know where you get this advice, but believe me it is very wrong. You can reject a car upon delivery, but the fit for for purpose rule also applies afterwards because a "consumer" is not able to test all the cars functions and their reliability without using it. As stated in the act you have to allow the dealer the opportunity to effect repairs, which means using it of course. The faults were reported well within the initial delivery period, which further adds weight to a claim for rejection. There is no 6 month deadline in any law in the UK for rejection (only for 100% refund) and in fact under European law it is 6 years for the UK as well, although it is difficult to enforce becuase of wear & tear issues. The law states a reasonable time and although you may have to contribute to the replacement car if you have had use of it, you can 100% reject it. It is stated in the sale of goods act.

I also mentioned that it is always the dealer which whom you have the contract, but they in turn have a contract with Fiat which will allow them to recoup reasonable costs.

Forgive me for asking this, but what sort of background do you have in law. I have studied contract law and use it every day. I have also used the law to reject a car.

 

[sumplug]

I don't know where you get this advice, but believe me it is very wrong. You can reject a car upon delivery, but the fit for for purpose rule also applies afterwards because a "consumer" is not able to test all the cars functions and their reliability without using it. As stated in the act you have to allow the dealer the opportunity to effect repairs, which means using it of course. The faults were reported well within the initial delivery period, which further adds weight to a claim for rejection. There is no 6 month deadline in any law in the UK for rejection (only for 100% refund) and in fact under European law it is 6 years for the UK as well, although it is difficult to enforce becuase of wear & tear issues. The law states a reasonable time and although you may have to contribute to the replacement car if you have had use of it, you can 100% reject it. It is stated in the sale of goods act.

I also mentioned that it is always the dealer which whom you have the contract, but they in turn have a contract with Fiat which will allow them to recoup reasonable costs.

Forgive me for asking this, but what sort of background do you have in law. I have studied contract law and use it every day. I have also used the law to reject a car.

i suggest you check with trading standards. they stipulate the more you use the car, the less chance of rejecting it. even consumer groups endorse this.
you are right on the 6 yr rejection, except scotland is 5 yrs. the onus after 6mths is for the seller to prove the car is fit for the purpose.
remember, there are the sales of goods act, the trades discription act and consumer protection laws.
ive been in the motor trade a long time. the laws have come into effect several times for me to help people reject a car.

 

[sumplug]

just checked again with the sales of goods act and it states you have two courses of choice on purchase;-
1/ reject the car for a full refund
2/ have the car repaired or replaced
so i was not talking rubbish as you say i am. and i never said there was a 6 month rule for rejection. i said the onus is on the buyer for the first 6 months to prove the car is faulty. after 6months, the onus is on the seller. up to 6 yrs except scotland, you can reject it and claim upto 100% refund. this does not take in to account, wear and tear. this is where the law is a bit grey on the matter. its up to the buyer and seller to come to an agreement on what amount of money is payable to replace the car.