[popey]

Woodmans backed me up all the way with my rejection, so not all dealers are the same.

[mister.t]

Cant believe that. I get the impression some dealers really are ignorant, yet others (fortunatly ours) seem very helpful and willing to help. Very sorry to hear the news

[TimCrighton]

Having read my way through this roller coaster of a post I'd like to congratulate Martin F on having made the most sensical and well argued posts I've read on Mini2 for a LONG time.

Craig, I feel for you, however you need to consider your LEGAL position. As I'm sure would all of those who have posted in this thread, I would be unbelievably frustrated if a car I'd worked hard to afford and purchase (or put on credit) proved to be a disappointment but this emotional position doesn't represent your legal position. Yes under statutory rights law you have the right to demand a good that performs as was originally agreed by yourself, the sales person, the specification of the car and your bespoke order. Martin has already pointed out the appropriate case law (see earlier pages) and Paul, no the law hasn't changed, that case law stands as far as I know. Ammendments to the consumer act have been made but this primarily concerns the wording of the policies and a few minor 'tweaks' to bring in line with common european policy.

Craig I hope it gets sorted but just remember the guys dealing with it aren't the guys that built your car, they are just the guys that have to deal with other peoples **** ups!! Best of luck

[Paul]

I can only speak from my own experience and the research I have carried out as a result. Based on the cases I have made when successfully rejecting three below par new cars. Every time though I did give the supplier time to fix the problems first.

[Chris.F]

I have just met a 'Chips Away' agent who was telling me what a busy day he had yesterday fixing up 07 cars going out today and tomorrow. He said the dealership had several cars with chips, scratches and dents on cars ready for handover this weekend. One in particular had several people working on electrics, engine and paintwork to get it fixed. The dealer knew of at least 8 faults but was going ahead!!!!!!!!!

Thank goodness its not mine. But obviously it happens!

[Melly]

Its unbelievable isn't it! We had a few calls yesterday of 07 cars within an hour of leaving the showroom breaking down! Shocking!

[CooperS4us]

I personally think that the Oxford factory is bursting at its seams and the high production cycles appear to be affecting quality control. It's 2002 all over again folks....

[TimCrighton]

Dent specialists are a regular at most dealerships I think! I know of a dealer (non BMW) that fitted the incorrect spark plugs (to long) which on start up punched a hole in the top of the piston and they then charged the customer for damage caused by 'pre ignition' which had caused the piston to 'melt' and if they'd had bought it in 3,000 miles ago 'when surely they'd have noticed the noise' then it would have been preventable... Now thats the sort of dealer that annoys me, but unless you're mechanically aware I'm not sure you'd be able to prove it....

[AndyP]

Been a silent lurker on this thread for a wee while now, but posts from Melanie and Chris F have changed my mind and I just feel the need to jump in.

The fact is, despite the court cases being referred to, in the tidying up of the Sale Of Goods Act in early 2002, nothing is referred to the Trader being automatically entitled to an opportunity to repair the goods before a rejection can be considered. And the suggestion that the trader must be given three opportunities is palpably absurd.

If this was the case it would have to be the case for all traders and all goods. The courts simply can not distinguish between one type of trade and another in sale of goods law. Imagine this: Court day...

First claimant stands in front of the judge and says: "You honour, my car is has a faulty gearbox, faulty heating control knob, faulty windscreen wiper and there is a loud and disturbing rattle comes from the engine area at low revs. I believe all these faults to be inherent and I regard the vehicle as not conforming to the law which as your lordship will know must be free from minor defe......"

Judge interrupts: "yes, yes. We all sympathise with you. You bought a premium product and you still expect it to work. Well I have news for you, young man... you can just give the supplying trader 3 opportunities to fix it"

First complainant: "Oh. Ok then." Walks off in a sulk.

Second case:

Second complainant: "You honour, I bought a mousetrap for a quid at Poundland and it doesn't work. And they won't give me my money back."

Judge: "Ah well, as I told the last person he had to give the trader 3 opportunities to repair his faulty goods, I have set case law and therefore must also give Poundland 3 opportunities to fix your mousetrap."

Second claimant: "*!*&@$ THAT!"

Total utter bull. Sorry, but it is.

Looking at this from a traders point of view, if it were law that a trader had 3 opportunities to repair faulty goods, it would clearly say so in the following DTI Traders guide book.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

Clearly there's no reference to the 3 opportunities nonsense.

This post shouldn't be seen as any kind of pop at anyone, but when incorrect advice is given it riles me.

However, no-matter what I've said above, the fact remains that any reasonable person is going to give the dealer an opportunity to repair the car. But Craig has said that the trader he bought the car from and another trader (in the application of the manufacturer's warranty offer) has also tried to repair the car and both have failed. As a sign of incredible patience (far beyond my own) Craig seems to have given the supplying trader a further opportunity to repair the car, and good for him. I hope it works.

But for anyone to suggest that after 2 failed attempts at repair, taking into account the NOT minor faults the car inherently has, I think a rejection is not in any way unreasonable.

Melanie, I totally accept your regular statement that no matter how bad your customers cars are there is no reason they should shout at you or use abusive language. It's not your fault they're faulty. However, I would suggest that if you find you are being shouted at an awful lot, you may wish to request some further training from your employer, because there may be an issue with how you are dealing with your customers. Perhaps your exacerbating the problem?

AndyP

[Den W]

Hi mate we're also having loads of problems with our first generation MCS (56 reg) read our catalogue of disasters! which is still a long way from being sorted we're also trying to reject the car, but the dealer's not playing ball http://www.mini2.com/forum/faults-fi...ml#post2923337

[Millie-Milou]

I really sympathize with you on this. I had to reject a Smart Car last summer after Merc had had 4 or 5 attempts at fixing the damn thing. Mind you, it had total electrical failure in the dark on the
A50 duel carriage way and we nearly got smushed by an artic.
Smart actually swapped the passion coupe for a passion cabrio with tons of nice extras. My other half drives it now and adores it. Having said that, its never tried to kill him on the A50.

I wish you luck with your MINI and hope that they either sort out your niggles properly and finally or accept the rejection. Hopefully, either way, you can come to a satisfactory agreement.

MM

[craigd]

makes for interesting reading Den. I do think MINI and Dealers think that we have nothing better to do than make up stories and waste their time and ours...

I would just keep at them... I have finally got my dealer to agree to fix all the faults or agree to rejection of the vehicle. It's VERY stressful, but if you keep at it, you should get a result.

It's not just a car to me tho, it's a part of the family and one of my most enjoyable hobbies.. Times like these tho test my resolve for MINI..

[Den W]

We can totally identify with what you said about our MINIs being a part of the family- a big part of our lives. This has stressed Paul out so much tho he is saying he is seriously thinking of walking away from MINI altogether. What's weird though we've had 4 MINIs my 2 have been great while both of Paul's have been a complete nightmare!

[AndyParker]

the case law relating to the " 3 attempts to fix" specifically relates to a car, not a tv or a mousetrap as people have been comparing them to. The judge of the relevant case even said " The complexity of the intended function of the goods is clearly a prime consideration here. What is a reasonable time in relation to a bicycle would hardly suffice for a nuclear submarine."
Thus he admits that the same case law would not apply to a bicycle or a £1 mousetrap and again why this 3 chances to fix can't be written into the law specifically. This is why we have so much case law!!

I take peoples points about smaller items (tv's and mousetraps) just being replaced if found to be faulty but they don't cost £15k to make so you can understand why a car manufacturer won't just right a car off if there are a few problems and hand you a new one. They'd all be bankrupt!

[AndyP]

Quote: Originally Posted by AndyParker (original)

....so you can understand why a car manufacturer won't just right a car off if there are a few problems and hand you a new one. They'd all be bankrupt!

I disagree. I think they'd put a heck of a lot more effort in testing a product before making available to their customers.

Although I've always accepted that you can't beat 50,000 test drivers in the first few months of a new vehicle launch. They all do it - but we don't have to like it. And the biggest issue Craig, Popey and Paul have had in their relevant threads is how the trader has dealt with their complaints. This is where the main fault lies. Although I accept Popey seems to have had excellent service from Woodman's. If Woodman's can do it, why can't They all do it?

[AndyParker]

i'm not disagreeing with you at all. We shouldn't like it!
Problems are always going to occur to some extent or another - fact. But its the way the dealers deal with the problems (or don't) that give them a good reputation or not.
Often if you have a problem and it gets dealt with promptly and in the right way you're often happier than if the problem hadn't happened at all because your expectations have been exceeded. Its just a fact of life that some dealers are better than others, its the same with branches of the same shops for exapmle. you can have great service from one branch manager but then be fobbed off by another manager from a different branch.
At the end of the day the dealer has to have a chance to put something right - wether they do or not and the level of service you receive is down to them - at which point they'll feel the full dorce of the car being returned to them under rejection.

[AndyP]

OK. Was concerned that I was talking rubbish about the "3 opportunities to fix being nonsense" issue, so I've done some surfing.

The case some of you are referring to was Bernstein Vs Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd (1987). What is being suggested on here (that under this appeal court decision - retailers must be given 3 opportunities to repair a car) is indeed rubbish. The court did find for the retailer, but not because they hadn't been given enough opportunities to repair the vehicle (no reference is made to repairing the vehicle in any documents I can find), but it was because Mr Bernstein didn't notify the retailer of his intention to reject the car - it had some pretty nasty faults - before the faults appeared!!! Shocking! The vehicle developed the faults after only 140 miles, but it seems because of a period of illness, Mr Bernstein hadn't been driving the car, and so a longer than normal period of time (for 140 miles) had passed before the fault developed and the fault being reported and the car being rejected. On a personal note I am startled that a Judge found in favour of a retailer because the purchaser waited 3 weeks and 140 miles before reporting a serious fault with his car. The "bicycle and nuclear submarine" reference is there - but it relates to what constitutes a "reasonable time period" from purchase to rejecting the goods, rather than opportunities to repair the goods.

Information on this case can be found in this article: Law Gazette - General news
which makes for some very interesting reading.

HOWEVER! Before you all go "Ah ha! told you so!" The law has changed. This article... Law Gazette - General news ...discusses the new Sale and Supply Of Goods Act 1994, which is an amendment to the Sale Of Goods Act 1979. The article states that the new 1994 law tidies up the 1979 law and reinforces the "freedom from minor defects" issue, which was far too vague in the 1979 law. It also states that durability can be a feature of goods which are to count as satisfactory (merchantable).

The 2002 amendments go even further, moving the burden of responsibility to prove the goods were not defective at the time of sale to the retailer, rather than the burden on the purchaser to prove they were.

So ultimately, the suggestion that "It's case law 'cos it happened in 1987 therefore there's precedent" is not entirely true. A significant change in the law relating to the court ruling has been issued on two occasions since this ruling therefore a refusal to accept a rejection without recourse to rectify a fault (even minor) could result in a retailer being taken to court again to test the new law. Heck, it may already have happened, I just can't find any reference to it on the web.

Craig..... how deep are your pockets?

[popey]

When I was having all the problems and facing rejection I have to admit it did effect my personal life. I was stressed, couldn't sleep and was falling out with the Mrs all down to a sub standard car.

For me all these bad memory's are attached to the faulty car. We are now looking forward to spec'ing a new one for April delivery and we hope that will be problem free .

[Paul]

Quote: Originally Posted by AndyP (original)

OK. Was concerned that I was talking rubbish about the "3 opportunities to fix being nonsense" issue, so I've done some surfing....

Thanks for the clarication, I really didn't want to spend my time and energy dragging up all relevant information again, not after doing it all for my own rejections!

[eggtruck]

Quote: Originally Posted by craigd (original)

Well, as some of you may have read, I have had quite a few problems with my car.

1) I have the same gearbox problem with Popey,
2) the low down rattle from the engine at low revs (which MINI say is a characteristic!)
3) a problem with my auto-aircon fan control sticking (agreed replacement on order)
4) distortion from speakers under load
5) noise passenger side wiper motor - driving me nuts!!!!!!
6) sound of rushing water on accelerating not long after starting up.
7) the diesel sound noise showed up once yesterday and hasn;t returned.

I sent a letter to the dealer and to MINI UK rejecting the car on Wed last week and have been waiting ever since to get a response.

I received a call from the dealer today and they have said that they are refusing to accept my rejection as they have not had the opportunity to fix the problems and I MUST give them that opportunity under the sale of goods act..

They have had 2 chances to repair points 2 and 3 and 1 chance to fix problem 1 without success. All of the other problems have occured since I reported the first problem 2 weeks after delivery.

I have reluctantly agreed to give them one final chance. The car is going in tomorrow and I have been told to arrange for insurance for the courtesy for 2 weeks . MINI would not even discuss compensation with me over the phone..

this looks like it will be the last MINI I will own as I cannot believe MINI's attitude re reporting of problems. Their customer service has taken a serious nose-dive..

A very disgruntled MINI enthusiast...

Hey guys - rather that the whine from a super charger - I think we are gong to have to get used to all these noises in the R56 as they are the new characteristics - mine is the exactly the same! I find the sound of rushing water quite soothing!! (not)