I am rejecting the car after three weeks

[shortvehicle]

Problems? That is being kind. thirty grand for a vehicle sold on safety and reliability... This is surely a new comedy sitcom script...

OK here is a part copy of what I sent to Volvo AND the dealer: (Thanks for the blank, Dom)

. I am dissatisfied with the product I have bought from you and as such I would like to reject this car.

The faults with the car are as follows:
On Sunday 16th May Message on dash required one litre of oil to be added to the engine. The Odometer read 680 miles. Travelling from Bluewater to Maidstone, I headed to the Dealer as it was on route. At 13:30hrs, only sales people were on site, and I was asked to call in tomorrow.
I added one litre of oil as I had a pack available carried as a spare from my previous vehicle. The oil was fully synthetic 5-30w for Diesel Engines, and with a very high VW spec (previous vehicle was a VW Passat).
I called to explain on the phone on Monday morning that I had found the oil dipstick was not correctly fitted, and that only one of the side prongs was in the hole. Oil had sprayed from the sump through that hole entirely within the engine compartment such that the whole area was a mess.
Oil was found on my driveway also.
The service department sent a driver to collect the XC60 from my place of work. They left me a loan vehicle.
I was called later that day to be advised that the engine had been cleaned and checked and all was now OK. I collected the vehicle on my return from work one hour later.
The car was used daily to Friday to commute to work and home only. On Saturday and Sunday (22nd & 23rd May) The car went nowhere, as My wife used her car for all driving requirements the weekend. I drove to work normally Monday morning, (24th May) and all appeared OK. When I put the key in the ignition and started the engine at 4:15pm, the message immediately appeared: “SRS/Airbag Service Urgent”.
I drove immediately to the dealer, as again it was on route. They have the vehicle there.

I have allowed the dealership to attempt to fix the problem with my car. To date, the car has been with your mechanics twice in two weeks (The car is just three weeks from new!) I made it clear from the outset in writing that my allowing you to repair would not affect my right of rejection and accordingly as you have been given ample opportunity to correct the faults with the vehicle, but with no satisfactory conclusion, I am therefore rejecting this car.

I bought a new car for security, safety, reliability, and new technological advances, for travelling both in the UK and in Europe.

To date, I have totally lost confidence in the Security and Safety of the vehicle because of these incidents, and I no longer feel the confidence to drive it and feel either safe or secure, or have the confidence that it will do what I bought it to do.
I had planned a trip to Spain in one month’s time, but could not possibly think of taking that car, as I have no confidence at all in its reliability. Faced with these problems fifty miles out from Calais, and two thousand miles to go to home, which way would you head? This vehicle is a calamity.

After just three weeks of a nightmare situation of owning this vehicle, I am rejecting the car back to you as the dealer and want a refund of my money on the grounds that it is not supplied to the standard required as a warrantable safe and secure vehicle that I could ever feel confident driving ever again.

Further to complicate the issue, but in no way did it contribute to these facts, the vehicle is not even close to the fuel consumption figures stated in all advisory and quoted test documentation. It definitely is not capable of any more than 42mpg on a combined cycle, and that compares to 47mpg quoted. I believe that is closer to its maximum figure.
I believe that the figures are over-quoted by a factor of 20-25%. However, as I said, that is not my reason for rejecting the vehicle.

I refer you to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, specifically Section 14 which details that the car I bought from you must be of satisfactory quality. From my own judgement I believe that the car you have sold me is not of a satisfactory quality, as such I believe you are contravening Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

These are not minor problems like a blown sidelight bulb, but actually could well have sustained engine damage due to running low on oil in the first 600 miles of its life, and the other problem meant that all the safety features the car was supposed to provide were dead. (Remember this vehicle is only THREE WEEKS old). I am thinking that this is the worst NEW car I have EVER had.
I also now have lost my holiday, and have to find a replacement banger very quickly.
If VOLVO think I won't take them to court... Dream on, cos I have a RADIO SHOW, and contacts within most sectors of the media industry here in the UK.
Maybe this is the runt of the litter, but they had better appease me or look out!!!

[VolvoXc60]

You have just made a bad choice of a car for yourself and you don´t want it. That´s what I got out of that.

Good luck with that court thing Mr. Big.

[john h]

Originally Posted by VolvoXc60

You have just made a bad choice of a car for yourself and you don´t want it. That´s what I got out of that.

Good luck with that court thing Mr. Big.

Really? I am amazed by that interpretation!

The message I got from the original post is that the car is a disgraceful pile of rubbish, and the dealer can't fix it.

I don't understand how having oil pouring out of a new £30k car consitutes a "bad choice" by the person who ordered it.

John

[XC60nick]

Sorry to hear that you're not happy with the car. Issues when they are new are very upsetting. I have had a few issues mainly with my dealer, but we have worked through them and I am happy for the time being.
I'm very interested in how you get on with rejecting the car / requesting a refund.
I feel your letter was let down by the last few paragraphs but good luck anyway....

[NewVolvo]

Sorry to hear that your new car has given you such problems.

As for rejecting the car, I don't think you will have much chance, but I am very curious to find out how that goes.

As seems to be the norm nowadays, the fuelconsumption figures must be taken with a pinch of salt as the tests are made in labs, and not on the open road under "normal" condition. Also, as a rule of thumb, always take of 10% to get anywhere near the real life figures.

[Citizen.Agfa]

Originally Posted by VolvoXc60

You have just made a bad choice of a car for yourself and you don´t want it. That´s what I got out of that.

Good luck with that court thing Mr. Big.

Your post makes the word dipstick spring to mind, and I don't mean his ill fitting one either.

C.A.

[wimorrison]

Good luck with your claim, please let everyone know what transpires.

I can see a dispute with the dealer over a poorly presented vehicle that had an unsatisfactory PDI, however to say that the car is unsatisfactory under the sale of goods act may be stretching the point.

I, for one, will watch this thread with interest.

[Daleman]

So do you like the car other than the minor problems you mention and slightly heavier fuel consumption than expected?

[mybubba]

shortvehicle

I think your are quite rightly annoyed over early faults/problems given the brand new car. I also think your letter is more a rant written whilst carrying your emotions. That's a pity as it won't help your cause.

Collating facts in a neutral manner will get you much further - although I don't believe you have enough cause for an outright rejection. I think at best and quite possibly so you can claim compensation from the dealership as it should have checked the car before handing it over. You may even find that Volvo Cars UK will step in to assist you both, with investigating the dealership and financially.

In regard to the details of concern.
OIL: the difference between max and min is approx 1 litre and given the pretty intelligent central management system I expect that the system request was in time and the level prior still sufficient albeit low.
SRS: each of the management modules will run through startup checks and flag up (potential) problems. It has happened to me on the rare occasion that a reading was out of limits but would be of non-permanent nature (i.e. restart required). Was your warning permanent?

We have had our own significant share of upsets due to technical failures (e.g. central locking) and more importantly very bad experience with dealerships (I am still waiting for one that is actually of high standard).
Yet the car (V50 2.0d) has, when looked after, performed pretty well over the last 4 years.

Volvo claims Premium Quality and certainly has still work to do to achieve that but on a whole Volvos are decent cars.
You have every right to expect a good service from manufacturer and dealerships and should tell them that you expect them to perform.
Very firm and polite will get you there.
Good luck. Let us know how you get on.

[mas66]

Having succesfully rejected a brand new Audi 3 years ago, I really dont think you stand much chance of success on the facts you give.

In my humble opinion giving the dealer one day to fix the SRS issue is not allowing them the chance to repair it that any court would expect.

As has already been mentioned if you are serious you really would stand a better chance by sticking to the facts and issues in hand rather than drifting off into fuel consumption and threats about radio shows etc.

Good luck !

All IMHO of course

Cheers