List of problems.. Back from dealership with more problems..

Sorry to hear you are having hassle with ur new car,and hope u get it sorted,mate :thumbsup:

You have grounds for replacement car,under sale of goods act...but give them another chance at least,to rectify the problems....

I had a brand new 2002 leon cupra(18k car back then),6months in,it needed 2 lots of coilpacks,after breaking down twice in 3weeks,and gearbox issues;but was great after 3trips to dealers,and its replacement 2yrs later was also hassle free
.........the coilpacks also affected all Audi S3's/RS3's;TT's,etc,etc that had the 20valve turbo engine,AND when taking mine into dealer for repair(on the back of a truck),it joined alot of 35-40k plus Audis,
so dont give up on the car just yet :thumbsup:
 
Trouble is, most people on here dont seem to be experiencing even "niggles", let alone some of the bigger faults, yet if we paid the same money for the cars, its understandable that those with faults feel hard done by.

Yes, the cars are suitable from purpose - at the end of the day the basic requirement from the car is to get from A to B, and they do that.

however, if thats all that we wanted, we'd have bought a much cheaper car.

So, looking at the premium price paid, and fault, no matter how niggly it is, means the product isn't of the quality reasonably expected.

the fact that other people dont have the same issues just goes to prove it is a fault on this particular car etc.

He might have to give them another opportunity to rectify it (although I dont see why that has to be with the supplying dealer as he has quite rightly lost confidence in them) in order to be seen to be giving them a reasonable opportunity to rectify things, but when does that stop?

My dealer says BMW will fix my leak and it wont cost me anything but they cant say when they will fix it - I could be in the same boat in 6 months, and thats not reasonable.
 
Hi, just a couple of general points from a lawyer with a problem free E89 (they do exist!), especially as it seems that a number of people might have considered rejecting their cars at one point or another. (In typical lawyer fashion I'm going to disclaim all liability for what I say below, and that you shouldn't rely on it as being legal advice.)

If you do end up taking things further and the car was purchased through finance, the relevant legislation is the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 (particularly section 10(2)), and not the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which would only be applicable if you purchased the car outright. Depending on the terms of the agreement, you would also probably need to pursue the finance company, rather than the dealer, as in a strict contractual sense they purchased the car from the dealer and then hired it to you.

In JDM's case, I think that he probably does have fairly good grounds at least to try and reject the car. A few cases that might help to argue the point (and are relevant for others too) are as follows:

(1) Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd
(2) Bernstein v. Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd
(3) B.S. Brown & Son Ltd v. Craiks Ltd

I won't bore everyone with their exact content, but a few useful elements of them are:

From (1), directly related to a car purchase, the appearance of the car matters as much as mechanical elements, and the supposed quality of the Z4 and BMW should be taken into account: "...one would include in respect of any passenger vehicle not merely the buyer's purpose in driving the car from one place to another but of doing so with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability and, one might add, of pride in the vehicle's outward and interior appearance. What is the appropriate degree and what relative weight is to be attached to one characteristic of the car rather than another will depend on the market at which the car is aimed..."

From (2), also directly related to a car purchase (although second-hand in this case), when deciding whether it is reasonable to reject the car it is necessary to take into account whether all the defects could be rectified with relative ease and would result in a car that was "as good as new" or whether rejection would be a more appropriate solution.

From (3), relating to the sale of a carpet, but the principle is the same, the price paid for a product does matter and you are entitled to expect better quality from a more expensive product than you would be from a cheaper one.

One point to bear in mind is that if it is decided that you are not entitled to reject the car, you strictly speaking still have a choice between repair and replacement. The dealer would be able to argue that one is cheaper than the other (most likely repair), but it can't hurt to remind them that you would push for replacement if things got serious.

Finally, if you do find that you have problems, then make sure that you take them up with the dealer within the first six months as, during that time, it would be for the dealer to prove that any problems were not sufficient to make the car of unsatisfactory quality. After six months, this burden of proof will reverse, and it will be for you to prove that the problems were sufficient to make the car of unsatisfactory quality.

Sorry that was so boring, but hope it might help someone at some point and given that I've lurked and taken a lot of useful information from this forum, I thought I'd try to give some back! Oh, and I still haven't put up pics of my car...!

Any questions, let me know.
 
*sticks his hand up* I have a question.

What would happen if the dealer had placed the order for you and then told you that the car did not come with Hill Assist right before you purchased it and then told you to sort it out with BMW? I believe that in the terms of the act you can reject or negotiate for compensation in this case. What would then happen if BMW sent you out compensation that you had not received after a few weeks, are you still entitled to reject the car under "Not as described"?
 
Generally it is advisable to exercise the right to reject as quickly as possible, a buyer could lose the right to reject after as little as 3 weeks although this is not set in stone. However, where the problem has been apparent since purchase and the dealer/manufacturer has accepted this and have acknowledged that they are prepared to do something about it, whilst those negotiations are ongoing it is very arguable that the time should not run as against the buyer. This argument allowed the buyer of a yacht to reject it after 6 months. That said, if agreement has been reached as to an appropriate solution but BMW are simply not following that through then it may be advisable to expressly reserve the right to reject if the agreed compensation is not received within a specified time.
 
resjud said:
Hi, just a couple of general points from a lawyer with a problem free E89 (they do exist!), especially as it seems that a number of people might have considered rejecting their cars at one point or another. (In typical lawyer fashion I'm going to disclaim all liability for what I say below, and that you shouldn't rely on it as being legal advice.)

If you do end up taking things further and the car was purchased through finance, the relevant legislation is the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 (particularly section 10(2)), and not the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which would only be applicable if you purchased the car outright. Depending on the terms of the agreement, you would also probably need to pursue the finance company, rather than the dealer, as in a strict contractual sense they purchased the car from the dealer and then hired it to you.

In JDM's case, I think that he probably does have fairly good grounds at least to try and reject the car. A few cases that might help to argue the point (and are relevant for others too) are as follows:

(1) Rogers v. Parish (Scarborough) Ltd
(2) Bernstein v. Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd
(3) B.S. Brown & Son Ltd v. Craiks Ltd

I won't bore everyone with their exact content, but a few useful elements of them are:

From (1), directly related to a car purchase, the appearance of the car matters as much as mechanical elements, and the supposed quality of the Z4 and BMW should be taken into account: "...one would include in respect of any passenger vehicle not merely the buyer's purpose in driving the car from one place to another but of doing so with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability and, one might add, of pride in the vehicle's outward and interior appearance. What is the appropriate degree and what relative weight is to be attached to one characteristic of the car rather than another will depend on the market at which the car is aimed..."

From (2), also directly related to a car purchase (although second-hand in this case), when deciding whether it is reasonable to reject the car it is necessary to take into account whether all the defects could be rectified with relative ease and would result in a car that was "as good as new" or whether rejection would be a more appropriate solution.

From (3), relating to the sale of a carpet, but the principle is the same, the price paid for a product does matter and you are entitled to expect better quality from a more expensive product than you would be from a cheaper one.

One point to bear in mind is that if it is decided that you are not entitled to reject the car, you strictly speaking still have a choice between repair and replacement. The dealer would be able to argue that one is cheaper than the other (most likely repair), but it can't hurt to remind them that you would push for replacement if things got serious.

Finally, if you do find that you have problems, then make sure that you take them up with the dealer within the first six months as, during that time, it would be for the dealer to prove that any problems were not sufficient to make the car of unsatisfactory quality. After six months, this burden of proof will reverse, and it will be for you to prove that the problems were sufficient to make the car of unsatisfactory quality.

Sorry that was so boring, but hope it might help someone at some point and given that I've lurked and taken a lot of useful information from this forum, I thought I'd try to give some back! Oh, and I still haven't put up pics of my car...!

Any questions, let me know.
Click to expand...

That's really good of you to post the info. Much appreciated. Thank you :thumbsup:

I'm still awaiting a response from the dealer, I guess they have while Wednesday this week as I had given them 7 days to respond.

If I have any questions I'll certainly drop you a line

Thanks again!
 
That is indeed good advice - and very generous to offer it :thumbsup:

Would live to see a dealer's face when you start to quote precedent at him :lol:
 
*sticking my hand up*

I also have a question. Thank you so much for taking the time to type that above, it's very forum-spirited and generous of you *arse kissing* can i be so cheeky to ask what is your opinion of my parking sensors debacle?
(FYI if you haven't already read it http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=38367 it's long but a damn good read!)
If you are so, so kind to read and offer your opinion *more arse kssing* I'm sure JDM won't mind you answering here but you could answer on the sensors thread for interested parties to see. (I think there are still some)
*grovel, scrape, bow* thank you very much.
 
Hi Carol

No arse-kissing necessary! It's a pretty long thread, but I think I've got the gist of the problem and I have read bits of it before.

Again, this shouldn't be taken as formal legal advice or relied upon as such.

Going back to the beginning of the saga, when your car was delivered without Hill Assist you had two possible remedies available to you: (i) potentially, the right to reject the car; or (ii) the right to claim damages as compensation.

Being entitled to reject the car would have depended on a number of factors, and the essential question would (broadly speaking) have been whether the absence of Hill Assist constituted a sufficiently major departure from the description of the car given to you at the time of sale. Ordinarily I would have said that it wasn't sufficiently major – after all, it is still a Z4, it is still yellow, it has the right size engine, etc. – but in your case you had expressly discussed with the salesman the presence of Hill Assist and your concerns over the electronic parking brake. This would have made it easier to argue (i) that you had expressly relied on the car having Hill Assist when placing your order; (ii) the salesman was aware of the particular importance to you of the Hill Assist function; and (iii) possibly that if the car had not had Hill Assist, you would not have bought it (although this is difficult to prove). Rejecting the car may therefore have been possible in theory, although would most likely have been very difficult in practice to do. (NB: the criteria relevant to whether a car conforms broadly to its description will generally be different from the criteria relevant when assessing whether a car is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.)

Instead, probably wisely, you chose to accept damages from your dealer. Damages usually take the form of cash, but (as in your case) can also be in the form of "specific performance". Your agreement with your dealer was that OEM sensors would be fitted at the front and the rear. In theory it does not matter at all that this agreement was oral, rather than written, but in practice, as you identified, it is generally easier if these things are in writing. Hindsight is a wonderful thing...!

The agreement reached with your dealer was not honoured. My view, therefore, is that you are entitled to OEM or equivalent parking sensors and, if these cannot be fitted into the existing bumpers to an OEM standard, also to new front and rear bumpers. There are three possible explanations for this:

1. Your agreement with your dealer in relation to the parking sensors forms part of the same overall contract as the purchase of your car (or hire purchase in your case, to be completely accurate). As such, the parking sensors fitted either:

a. fail the "satisfactory quality" test in the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, sections 10(2)-(2B), that would be applied to the car as a whole; or

b. do not conform with their description, as required by the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, section 9(1)

You are entitled to be compensated for that (there is probably no alternative right of rejection as to do so would leave you with 8 holes in your bumpers!) and the correct measure of compensation will be that which would put you in the position that you would be in, had the contract been performed correctly, i.e. OEM or equivalent parking sensors.

2. Alternatively, your agreement with the dealer is a separate contract that is collateral to the original hire purchase agreement (I won't go into the legal requirements for a contract to be concluded – they aren't very exciting). As such, the parking sensors fitted again either fail the "satisfactory quality" test or do not confirm with their description. The relevant legislative provisions will probably be as above, although there is an argument that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will be relevant instead, in which case it would be sections 14(2)-(2B) and section 13(1) respectively. Either way, the provisions are materially identical and the distinction isn't really relevant at this stage.

3. Finally, if either of those arguments look likely to fail, you can always fall back on the Misrepresentation Act 1967. If your dealer has misrepresented the nature of the parking sensors to you, you are entitled to damages to put you in the position that you would be in, had the work been carried out correctly. Again, this could be cash or, more appropriately in your case, specific performance (in the form of actually providing OEM or equivalent parking sensors of an acceptable quality and finish). The only possible stumbling block as far as misrepresentation is concerned is that if, at the time the agreement was reached to install OEM or equivalent parking sensors, the dealer did in fact intend to do just that, rather than go down the alternative route, then misrepresentation would be harder to prove. In any event, though, reminding a dealer that there might have been fraudulent misrepresentation (there are other kinds but fraudulent sounds better) might provoke a constructive response.

Hope that helps!
 
Wow! Thank you, thank you. You are my new favourite (sorry Taz)

It's such a relief knowing I'm 'in the right'.
How do I stand given that BMW have paid our dealer £350 for the lack of hill assist and I knew nothing about it. Thinking of being cheeky and asking for it.

If you ever want wedding advice, give me a shout!

Thank you again :D
 
If I were you, I wouldn't get involved in the arrangements between BMW and your dealer.

As far as you are concerned, you can claim either a sum of money or the installation of parking sensors as compensation for the lack of Hill Assist. By asking for the £350 as well as a proper OEM installation, you'd be trying to have your cake and eat it - justifiable from an emotional point of view given the way you've been treated, but probably not so from a legal point of view.

Focus on what you know you're entitled to, and perhaps hint at any additional losses incurred (fuel costs getting to the dealer for installation etc.) that you would be entitled to claim if the matter went further, and your present position will seem all the more reasonable.
 
haha, maybe at your meeting, ask the installed how much they charged the dealer to fit your sensors.....

If the figure is less than £350, turn to the dealer and make him aware that you know he got £350 from BMW...ask him where the rest went!

I think some of the compensation packages have been given by the dealer with the help of BMW, so agree, you cant have the £350 as well, but the point here is that they should've used that to help them pay for the sensors, not to make a profit.

It wouldn't of hurt them to say we'll do the sensors and BMW are contributing £350 towards it, but at the end of the day, that doesn't matter (apart from them making ap profit...that is wrong).

Just stick to your guns, say you had agreed OEM and these are not OEM (in appearance or operation or LOCATION) and that you are not happy.

If you could push for OEM looking from this company, what about the location? If you wanted to be picky, you could force that as well.

You said the installer didn't recommend his OEM lookalikes cos of having to stick a bar to the rear of the bumper....does he think that might fall off? If so, then his option isn't feasable, and new bumper etc is your only way.

When is the meeting...or has it been and gone?
 
http://www.z4-forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=38367&p=555541#p555541

Carried this one on the proper thread as JDM's is getting hijacked! Sorry John!
 
Had a letter from the dealer :



I have agreed to let them have one last chance at fixing the issues. I have made it quite clear that if after their final attempt to sort the issues it is not to my satisfaction then I will be pushing for a replacement vehicle.

I have yet to confirm this in a letter to them as I only spoke with them this morning.
 
I think that is your best bet at this stage. Someone said they are allowed 3 goes...I dont know if this is written anywhere, or just what is considered "reasonable".

My dealer referred to the warranty also when I started talking about replacing mine...he said they will fix it...but not when! thats no good.

Hopefully now that they realise you are about to reject it, and thats probably the last thing they want, they will be extra careful with the car to ensure no more damage is done, and actually fix the problems!
 
Good luck jdm , hopefully they take the car and sort everything to the standard these cars deserve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
An actual list of N54 common problems
Replies
0
Views
540
Christrong
C
J
Z4 E85 common problems list
Replies
15
Views
7K
ph001
P
M
New Owner, List of Problems
Replies
5
Views
2K
Ewazix
E
P
Refresh List
Replies
8
Views
598
P40L VX
P
B21
I guess that's Wales off my road trip list for 2025....
Replies
19
Views
4K
Ole gits rule
O
Back
Top Bottom