992 Turbo S issues-Right to reject - Page 21 - 911/Carrera GT - PistonHeads UK

Hi all I bought a brand new Turbo S in December 2023 from an OPC and was initially so pleased with it. Three weeks later, a chassis system fault appeared and the car went back to them and it was fixed. Last week, the same fault reoccurred and I've now lost all confidence in the car, so following legal advice, via my insurer, I've decided to reject the car in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, under the final right to reject, as it's less than six months old and they've had one chance to fix it. I could have rejected it in the first 30 days, but felt it only reasonable to assume it was a one off, so gave the dealer a chance to repair it. I know cars are incredibly complex machines, but I don't expect problems with a new premium car. My Audi RS3 was bought new a year ago and I've had no problems, nor with my wife's one year old Mini Cooper S, again bought from new. I know the law is on my side and although my solicitor said I have the right to request a full refund, that the dealer can make a reasonable reduction for the mileage I've done-2500 miles. My question is whether there's any written guidance anywhere as to what is reasonable, or if anyone on here has experienced this situation, regarding agreeing an allowance? The dealer will have a different opinion to me! Which magazine suggests between 20-40 pence per mile is reasonable? Let me stress the car is lovely to drive and I didn't take the decision lightly but with the six months period looming, when I lose the final right to reject argument, I don't have confidence in it anymore. I've got broad shoulders, so if you think I'm being unreasonable, please say so, but any guidance regarding the allowance would be much appreciated.

Have you spoken to Porsche? I doubt they'd want you to be unhappy and will likely find a suitable solution for the two of you.

Yes, twice. The salesman thinks I'm being unreasonable (well he would) based on the complexity of the car and after the first fault in January, they offered a track day at Silverstone(never heard anymore!) I'm sure the dealer won't want to accept the car back, as it's expensive for them.

funboxster said: Hi all I bought a brand new Turbo S in December 2023 from an OPC and was initially so pleased with it. Three weeks later, a chassis system fault appeared and the car went back to them and it was fixed. Last week, the same fault reoccurred and I've now lost all confidence in the car, so following legal advice, via my insurer, I've decided to reject the car in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, under the final right to reject, as it's less than six months old and they've had one chance to fix it. I could have rejected it in the first 30 days, but felt it only reasonable to assume it was a one off, so gave the dealer a chance to repair it. I know cars are incredibly complex machines, but I don't expect problems with a new premium car. My Audi RS3 was bought new a year ago and I've had no problems, nor with my wife's one year old Mini Cooper S, again bought from new. I know the law is on my side and although my solicitor said I have the right to request a full refund, that the dealer can make a reasonable reduction for the mileage I've done-2500 miles. My question is whether there's any written guidance anywhere as to what is reasonable, or if anyone on here has experienced this situation, regarding agreeing an allowance? The dealer will have a different opinion to me! Which magazine suggests between 20-40 pence per mile is reasonable? Let me stress the car is lovely to drive and I didn't take the decision lightly but with the six months period looming, when I lose the final right to reject argument, I don't have confidence in it anymore. I've got broad shoulders, so if you think I'm being unreasonable, please say so, but any guidance regarding the allowance would be much appreciated. No way 20-40p a mile on a 992 Turbo S, I’d assume 5-10x that.

Who are you dealing with at the OPC? If you haven’t you need to be in dialogue with the dealer principle. I’m a little surprised as to the legal advice you’ve had based upon the post above. In these situations you would be expected to give the supplier reasonable time to solve the issue. One attempt feels light. I get the proximity to the six month statutory limitation, but that could be negotiated with the OPC. I would get in front of the DP ASAP.

bennno said: No way 20-40p a mile on a 992 Turbo S, I’d assume 5-10x that. Yes, I thought that 20-40p was an unrealistic figure!

acwh said: Who are you dealing with at the OPC? If you haven’t you need to be in dialogue with the dealer principle. I’m a little surprised as to the legal advice you’ve had based upon the post above. In these situations you would be expected to give the supplier reasonable time to solve the issue. One attempt feels light. I get the proximity to the six month statutory limitation, but that could be negotiated with the OPC. I would get in front of the DP ASAP. An email went to the DP on Thursday, copied to the salesman. The DP on leave, but their sales manager has replied to advise he's passed my email to their legal team. The CRA does say you only have to give one attempt, before rejecting. Good point about negotiating on timescale, as I've stopped using the car, because they can't look at it for a month!

The CRA says this with caveat. That being the supplier cannot prove the fault wasn’t there when new. This will be a drawn out and ugly affair. I would recommend a face to face with the DP or their deputy if timescales dictate, as soon as you can. What outcome are you looking for? Is it money back to buy something else or ?

Was it financed? In which case you are rejecting it back to the finance company presumably? ID wager with the values in freefall they'd be very keen to avoid taking it back, as much as youd be keen to get a full value refund.

acwh said: The CRA says this with caveat. That being the supplier cannot prove the fault wasn’t there when new. This will be a drawn out and ugly affair. I would recommend a face to face with the DP or their deputy if timescales dictate, as soon as you can. What outcome are you looking for? Is it money back to buy something else or ? Ideally I want my money back, less a reasonable allowance for the mileage covered. I'm happy to meet their DP or deputy, but my mind really is made up.

bennno said: Was it financed? In which case you are rejecting it back to the finance company presumably? ID wager with the values in freefall they'd be very keen to avoid taking it back, as much as youd be keen to get a full value refund. Not financed, paid for in cash, by faster payments. Didn't pay by credit card, as low credit limit. I wish I'd upped my limit to pay this way.

funboxster said: Not financed, paid for in cash, by faster payments. Didn't pay by credit card, as low credit limit. I wish I'd upped my limit to pay this way. Even if you pay £1 deposit on the credit card and the balance as cash you have full protection. Horse bolted and all that. Anyway, what did they say was wrong with the car the first time the issue came up?. Don’t think a single reoccurrence would put me off. Maybe more reasonable to given them one more chance and try and get a written extension in the right to reject?

I'd suggest that the dealer will claim they successfully fixed the original fault & that why it has not reappeared. They will likely suggest the current fault appearing some months later is not a continuation of the original & you are therefore required to allow them the opportunity to rectify.

Similar ones on the porsch website are listed for around £160k. I suppose thats a reasonable place to start.

darreni said: I'd suggest that the dealer will claim they successfully fixed the original fault & that why it has not reappeared. They will likely suggest the current fault appearing some months later is not a continuation of the original & you are therefore required to allow them the opportunity to rectify. I don’t see how they can claim it was successfully fixed if it has reappeared later. I’d also suggest that the fact they are saying the OP needs to wait a month is not exactly doing their utmost to fix things. OPC Service departments do build flex in to their scheduling as they obviously have no idea when a car comes in for a service what they are going to find. They don’t book out 100% of their capacity. My OPC is currently booking out six weeks in advance but they got my Cayenne in for a brake change a couple of weeks ago at 24 hours notice…they needed it for three days but they worked it in to their schedule.

darreni said: I'd suggest that the dealer will claim they successfully fixed the original fault & that why it has not reappeared. They will likely suggest the current fault appearing some months later is not a continuation of the original & you are therefore required to allow them the opportunity to rectify. As per Chieb post, the same fault has reappeared, so they can't have fixed it? They've had one opportunity, this would be a second attempt. Also two other faults up, PADM and engine control. They're probably connected to the chassis fault.

garystoybox said: funboxster said: Not financed, paid for in cash, by faster payments. Didn't pay by credit card, as low credit limit. I wish I'd upped my limit to pay this way. Even if you pay £1 deposit on the credit card and the balance as cash you have full protection. Horse bolted and all that. Anyway, what did they say was wrong with the car the first time the issue came up?. Don’t think a single reoccurrence would put me off. Maybe more reasonable to given them one more chance and try and get a written extension in the right to reject? I'd forgotten about the deposit! I paid £2k by credit card, so could go to my issuer and use section 75?

Sorry, meant to say thank you for your input so far

funboxster said: garystoybox said: funboxster said: Not financed, paid for in cash, by faster payments. Didn't pay by credit card, as low credit limit. I wish I'd upped my limit to pay this way. Even if you pay £1 deposit on the credit card and the balance as cash you have full protection. Horse bolted and all that. Anyway, what did they say was wrong with the car the first time the issue came up?. Don’t think a single reoccurrence would put me off. Maybe more reasonable to given them one more chance and try and get a written extension in the right to reject? I'd forgotten about the deposit! I paid £2k by credit card, so could go to my issuer and use section 75? There is a £30,000 limit to the total value of the purchase, so section 75 will not apply in this case

garystoybox said: Even if you pay £1 deposit on the credit card and the balance as cash you have full protection. Horse bolted and all that.? This is not my understanding. IIRC there is a ceiling of £30k. If your purchase is less than n £100 or more than £30k, the consumer credit act does not apply https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section7...

OP, what did you pay for the car new? What is it worth now? these might be significant sums, which might make the OPC take a stand. Also, would you accept a new 992 Turbo S as an alternative to a full refund?

I've been down this path with a Trophy-R a few years ago. It was a horrible experience and took months to get it resolved. You have to formally reject the car and demand a refund. Under no circumstances should you leave the car with them until you have it in writing that they have accepted your right to reject. Once you have rejected it I would suggest you don't use the car. There is some good info here which is guidance for businesses and section 7 discusses the reduction for use. https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/f... Once you have formally notified them you will have a good idea how it will play out. They will either accept it and ask you to return the car and issue a refund or they will dig their heels in and try and obstruct the process or get legals involved.

belfry said: OP, what did you pay for the car new? What is it worth now? these might be significant sums, which might make the OPC take a stand. Also, would you accept a new 992 Turbo S as an alternative to a full refund? This. Otherwise, although CRA2015 states everything that you have posted, it's going to be a very long drawn out affair, and you cannot put a financial value against your time and mental health as it will take a huge toll on both until a resolution is found. Unless you purchased with a stonking discount, this will easily have shed £40+k, and the DP and sales executive who was your great pal on purchasing shall very soon, if not already, be 'with a customer, in a meeting, offsite or on a day off'. Request a brand-new replacement with a moderate adjustment for mileage, that will be a bit more palatable and give them options. If that goes ahead, offer it to a good prestige dealer SOR with delivery mileage if you do not want to keep. I just offloaded a 1900 miles GTS cab we bought new that was 5mths old with an amazing spec, so I have current experience of selling 992s. Unfortunately, i cannot see a happy ending regardless due to the massive drop in values that 992s have currently subjected to. I do wish you all the best though.

I may be alone, but this sounds like a monumental overreaction to me!

funboxster said: bennno said: No way 20-40p a mile on a 992 Turbo S, I’d assume 5-10x that. Yes, I thought that 20-40p was an unrealistic figure! Can’t see this being that easy to hand the car back, the depreciation on a turbo s over the last 5 to 6 months most be a sizeable amount of money. The opc won’t make it easy for you, they certainly won’t want that car back. You may be better off pushing for a replacement car.

Is it just me or does it sound like the OP is looking for a way out of the massive depreciation that 992 turbo s have had in the last 6 months and the second fault looks like a possible golden ticket out of it? Either that or it's just a massive overreaction, in which case I apologise for the above but would refer you to see Dr Chopper!

Wheelspinning said: I just offloaded a 1900 miles GTS cab we bought new that was 5mths old with an amazing spec, so I have current experience of selling 992s. . I do wish you all the best though. Out of interest what made you suddenly decide to sell a car you had recently spent 100 odd grand on with only 1900 miles on it? Did you not like it?

I assume the value offered would be trade (not retail?) in which case see what opc cars match yours in spec and mileage and knock 15k off? Think I would just let them fix the car

OPOGTS said: I may be alone, but this sounds like a monumental overreaction to me! Likewise, I’m not in anything close to the same ballpark purchasing wise as the OP. But his car has an issue, it even came up a second time. Has it tried to kill you so far ? Does it make the car a death trap ? I get that it’s an inconvenience. Have you just lost interest in the car and this is a handy way out ? OP I could be completely wrong of course.

Bought car, suffered massive depreciation and minor fault: trying to foist it back on the dealer as rejected from new. 2,500 miles Dec to Apr is a good number of miles in one of these - can’t have been all that broken! Good luck OP.

Thanks again for the further replies. To summarise some of the extra points raised: No, I'm not looking to get out of the depreciation issue. I want to stress I bought the car, because I wanted one and planned to keep it for two years., but I've lost confidence in the car. I know cars are an easy way to throw money away. The car was advertised with a £14k discount. It had £20k of extras on it. I'm taking the emotion out of the issue. A car, in my mind, is no different to buying say, a premium product. If the product went wrong twice in three months and the supplier had had a chance to repair once, I'd reject as not of satisfactory build quality. Wouldn't you? I'm guided by cars I've owned which have never given any problems during ownership. Would I accept another TS? Yes, but it would need to be new, of the same spec(or better) and a colour acceptable to me. As some of you have said, this could turn out a long drawn out affair. The DP is back this week, so hopefully, he'll be ringing me and yes, the salesman is not responding to my emails of record, ie, I've stopped driving the car, as of last week, due to the fault. I have history with this issue. In 2018, I rejected a McLaren bought new after one year of ownership, having experienced lots of electrical and starting problems with it, from about nine months old. From my first rejection letter, the dealer agreed to buy back the car after two weeks, for the list price, less the extras, so lost £20k, having owned for one year and put 5k on the clock. Perhaps I was lucky there. Again, I saw the McLaren as a product and took emotion out of my thinking.

funboxster said: Thanks again for the further replies. To summarise some of the extra points raised: No, I'm not looking to get out of the depreciation issue. I want to stress I bought the car, because I wanted one and planned to keep it for two years., but I've lost confidence in the car. I know cars are an easy way to throw money away. The car was advertised with a £14k discount. It had £20k of extras on it. I'm taking the emotion out of the issue. A car, in my mind, is no different to buying say, a premium product. If the product went wrong twice in three months and the supplier had had a chance to repair once, I'd reject as not of satisfactory build quality. Wouldn't you? I'm guided by cars I've owned which have never given any problems during ownership. Would I accept another TS? Yes, but it would need to be new, of the same spec(or better) and a colour acceptable to me. As some of you have said, this could turn out a long drawn out affair. The DP is back this week, so hopefully, he'll be ringing me and yes, the salesman is not responding to my emails of record, ie, I've stopped driving the car, as of last week, due to the fault. I have history with this issue. In 2018, I rejected a McLaren bought new after one year of ownership, having experienced lots of electrical and starting problems with it, from about nine months old. From my first rejection letter, the dealer agreed to buy back the car after two weeks, for the list price, less the extras, so lost £20k, having owned for one year and put 5k on the clock. Perhaps I was lucky there. Again, I saw the McLaren as a product and took emotion out of my thinking. Sounds like a v good ownership model to avoid the ravages of supercar depreciation. Good luck, please keep thread updated.

You will definitely be in for a long and difficult process OP. I am not at liberty to discuss details but I know of a similar instance which a 992 had multiple faults. Porsche really dragged their feet….OPC blamed Porsche GB for not authorising work, GB blamed Porsche AG etc etc They’ll want to try and repair the car…that will take weeks/months. They then may go down the replacement car route and you’ll probably have to go to court if you want to get your cash back. They will know that not many people want to incur five figure legal fees which you would easily be looking at to go to court….never mind all the stress which believe me will take over your life. The cheapest and quickest thing would be to get the car roadworthy and put it on CC and be done with it. You might be able to get an allocation for a GT car as compensation….personally that’s where I’d be going. That’s in the gift of the DP/Franchise Group and won’t cost them too much.

They'll be open to discussions about putting you in another car. As for them transferring the purchase price back to you minus a few quid for mileage, it's just not going to happen. If the residuals were rock solid would you still be trying to reject? I suspect not.

cseven said: I assume the value offered would be trade (not retail?) in which case see what opc cars match yours in spec and mileage and knock 15k off? Think I would just let them fix the car If you can achieve rejection, the dealer is obliged to refund the purchase price less a mutually agreed amount for mileage during ownership.

JackJarvis said: They'll be open to discussions about putting you in another car. As for them transferring the purchase price back to you minus a few quid for mileage, it's just not going to happen. If the residuals were rock solid would you still be trying to reject? I suspect not. Or if there were Overs

Porsche-worm said: Out of interest what made you suddenly decide to sell a car you had recently spent 100 odd grand on with only 1900 miles on it? Did you not like it? It was my first Porsche in 20 years. Really nice car, but my wife would use her 4x4 mostly, and if I was going for a jaunt, I would jump into our 675LT spider every single time, which I originally planned to offload when the GTS arrived. Just surplus. Very quick car though and I do recommend. By an amazing coincidence, a 992 turbo s coupe was traded against it at my friend's garage that was the same colour.

funboxster said: Thanks again for the further replies. To summarise some of the extra points raised: No, I'm not looking to get out of the depreciation issue. I want to stress I bought the car, because I wanted one and planned to keep it for two years., but I've lost confidence in the car. I know cars are an easy way to throw money away. The car was advertised with a £14k discount. It had £20k of extras on it. I'm taking the emotion out of the issue. A car, in my mind, is no different to buying say, a premium product. If the product went wrong twice in three months and the supplier had had a chance to repair once, I'd reject as not of satisfactory build quality. Wouldn't you? I'm guided by cars I've owned which have never given any problems during ownership. Would I accept another TS? Yes, but it would need to be new, of the same spec(or better) and a colour acceptable to me. As some of you have said, this could turn out a long drawn out affair. The DP is back this week, so hopefully, he'll be ringing me and yes, the salesman is not responding to my emails of record, ie, I've stopped driving the car, as of last week, due to the fault. I have history with this issue. In 2018, I rejected a McLaren bought new after one year of ownership, having experienced lots of electrical and starting problems with it, from about nine months old. From my first rejection letter, the dealer agreed to buy back the car after two weeks, for the list price, less the extras, so lost £20k, having owned for one year and put 5k on the clock. Perhaps I was lucky there. Again, I saw the McLaren as a product and took emotion out of my thinking. My local OPC has an unregistered 992 turbo s cab in what I think is the best colour with a fantastic spec that started at £215k in Feb, now listed at £185k with a definite further deal available. It's costing them over £2100 on a stocking charge; multiply that times the rest of the new stuff they have in there, never mind used. Currently, they are struggling to move cars, and have zero desire to buy back; your absolute best option would be to try and secure a replacement. Every single week this goes on, the value of your current Turbo S is dwindling at a rate of knots. As I mentioned before, I expect some serious lack of communication from your dealer going forward.

Daft as it sounds, would it be "cheaper" to go legal? Surely the OP's rights (if any!) don't vary based to the OPC's supply situation or the market's unfavourable context. I appreciate this will affect good will but perhaps that's where a bit of coercion might help?

OPOGTS said: I may be alone, but this sounds like a monumental overreaction to me! +1 Hard to see this ending well as they would be well within rights to argue that the buy-back should be based on the value of a 2,500 mile used car, which would be a cost in the tens of thousands of pounds. If it is truly fixed now then the only reason to reject is that it is actually a regretted purchase IMHO. Edited by Guyr on Sunday 14th April 11:31

David W. said: I’d kill to have a bit more detail on the chassis system fault. Is it a warning light, does the car go into limphome mode, is it underivable and needed roadside recovery? Ordinarily it sounds like it should be fixable and in my 16+year experience the Porsche warranty system works very well resetting back to zero on a replacement part. Can’t see how you have lost confidence. It just says chassis system fault, then adapted driving required. It doesn't go into limp mode, not undriveable or needs recovery. They couldn't fix it after one go, why will they be able to sort at second attempt? As I've stated, emotion is taken out of this. It's a product that, imo, is not of satisfactory build quality, hence loss of confidence in car/brand. I've had two Boxsters from new, with no issues during ownership. I'm not rejecting because of depreciation issues, but perceived reliabilty of a premium product.. My Audi RS3 is one year old, with no issues from new. My wife had three Mini Cooper S' from new, each for three years. No problem again with them.

darreni said: cseven said: I assume the value offered would be trade (not retail?) in which case see what opc cars match yours in spec and mileage and knock 15k off? Think I would just let them fix the car If you can achieve rejection, the dealer is obliged to refund the purchase price less a mutually agreed amount for mileage during ownership. I'd taken legal advice before considering rejection and they stated I'm entitled to full refund, because first fault occurred within 30 days of purchase. I chose not to reject then, as I hoped it wouldn't reoccur. I know that I'm not, because 30 days have expired, so into 30 days to 6 months period (final right to reject) and therefore reasonable reduction (to both parties) for miles covered. I didn't buy the car to be a garage queen, but to use and I travel to Devon a lot from Sussex, so 350 miles round trip, hence the 2.5k miles. I gave the dealer 14 days to respond to my email from 11 April. I'm not expecting my full purchase price back and never have.

funboxster said: Thanks again for the further replies. To summarise some of the extra points raised: No, I'm not looking to get out of the depreciation issue. I want to stress I bought the car, because I wanted one and planned to keep it for two years., but I've lost confidence in the car. I know cars are an easy way to throw money away. The car was advertised with a £14k discount. It had £20k of extras on it. I'm taking the emotion out of the issue. A car, in my mind, is no different to buying say, a premium product. If the product went wrong twice in three months and the supplier had had a chance to repair once, I'd reject as not of satisfactory build quality. Wouldn't you? I'm guided by cars I've owned which have never given any problems during ownership. Would I accept another TS? Yes, but it would need to be new, of the same spec(or better) and a colour acceptable to me. As some of you have said, this could turn out a long drawn out affair. The DP is back this week, so hopefully, he'll be ringing me and yes, the salesman is not responding to my emails of record, ie, I've stopped driving the car, as of last week, due to the fault. I have history with this issue. In 2018, I rejected a McLaren bought new after one year of ownership, having experienced lots of electrical and starting problems with it, from about nine months old. From my first rejection letter, the dealer agreed to buy back the car after two weeks, for the list price, less the extras, so lost £20k, having owned for one year and put 5k on the clock. Perhaps I was lucky there. Again, I saw the McLaren as a product and took emotion out of my thinking. I’m sorry to say this but you’re a nightmare of a customer and should be blacklisted from buying high end cars. You appear to use the cars extensively over a short period of time and then at the slightest sign of an issue, you want out and start threatening legal action etc. My view is that you’re playing the system because you can and I hope this time you get burned. Nothing further to add.

funboxster said: darreni said: cseven said: I assume the value offered would be trade (not retail?) in which case see what opc cars match yours in spec and mileage and knock 15k off? Think I would just let them fix the car If you can achieve rejection, the dealer is obliged to refund the purchase price less a mutually agreed amount for mileage during ownership. I'd taken legal advice before considering rejection and they stated I'm entitled to full refund, because first fault occurred within 30 days of purchase. I chose not to reject then, as I hoped it wouldn't reoccur. I know that I'm not, because 30 days have expired, so into 30 days to 6 months period (final right to reject) and therefore reasonable reduction (to both parties) for miles covered. I didn't buy the car to be a garage queen, but to use and I travel to Devon a lot from Sussex, so 350 miles round trip, hence the 2.5k miles. I gave the dealer 14 days to respond to my email from 11 April. I'm not expecting my full purchase price back and never have. So why not just sell it on Collecting cars and move on/

I cant say I've been in the same situation but my gf had a similar thing with the macan. Bought used from porsche exeter. Car had an issue with the transmission. Suspect transfer box but never confirmed. Car went in to opc West London twice within the 6 months under warranty. 3rd time she wanted to reject the car but it was just outside the 6 months. Wasn't getting anywhere with the dealers, so wrote to the ceo (I don't know who this was but I can find out if it helps). Suddenly there was traction and it was given back to Exeter for 6 grand less than the asking. Interestingly exeter did re list it around 3 months later for 3 grand more than she got back. But they dropped the price to what she got back and it must have sold after a while. She wasn't within her rights as it wasn't within 6 months. I would think that you are within your rights. Our matter was more complex as it was a franchise some distance away but not fixed by opc West London so they did some internal haggling to get the money to buy it back. I hope that helps in some way, and you have much more leverage than our situation. I can also understand why you lost confidence and don't want to end up in the same situation we did.

I agree, as consumers we should be even more naive and accept the salesman line that the car is complex. It doesn't really matter if there is a light on the dashboard as the MOT is not due anyway.

maz8062 said: I’m sorry to say this but you’re a nightmare of a customer and should be blacklisted from buying high end cars. You appear to use the cars extensively over a short period of time and then at the slightest sign of an issue, you want out and start threatening legal action etc. My view is that you’re playing the system because you can and I hope this time you get burned. Nothing further to add. How odd. I don't think the OP's being unreasonable expecting a new car, costing more than many people's houses, to be reliable. If it's suffered the same fault twice within the first 6 months, it doesn't seem it's going to be. The law exists as it does to protect him in these circumstances. Are you suggesting he shouldn't use his consumer rights, in order to protect high end car companies from having to produce products of sufficient quality? That's a funny hill to die on.

ConnectionError said: So why not just sell it on Collecting cars and move on/ Because he loses money that way. He shouldn’t have to lose money if he’s moving the car on, plus what kind of a person moves a car on with a known fault when it’s under warranty. I sympathise with OP. I had a battery issue on my 992 C2S with Porsche warranty. Issue Started in first month of ownership and carried on for 4 months. I couldn’t sit in the car with PCM on doing a phone call for more than 5 minutes without the battery going flat. A minor but very annoying issue. The battery passed all Porsches tests, and I spent hours taking the car back 3 times and then telling me no problem. Finally I camped out at the dealer until the did a real world test which proved it , then tried to charge me for the faulty battery which had “degraded” - I told them I would reject the car because if you can’t do a phone call in your stationary car for 5 minutes then it’s not fit for purpose. They relented but I had to fight hard. OP shouldn’t have to spend hours messing about over years to get this sorted for £150k car, all the while wondering if it will happen again. They should have one more chance sort it otherwise full refund or new car with no questions asked.

Forester1965 said: maz8062 said: I’m sorry to say this but you’re a nightmare of a customer and should be blacklisted from buying high end cars. You appear to use the cars extensively over a short period of time and then at the slightest sign of an issue, you want out and start threatening legal action etc. My view is that you’re playing the system because you can and I hope this time you get burned. Nothing further to add. How odd. I don't think the OP's being unreasonable expecting a new car, costing more than many people's houses, to be reliable. If it's suffered the same fault twice within the first 6 months, it doesn't seem it's going to be. The law exists as it does to protect him in these circumstances. Are you suggesting he shouldn't use his consumer rights, in order to protect high end car companies from having to produce products of sufficient quality? That's a funny hill to die on. This is the second time that the OP has rejected a car - there’s a pattern emerging; buy brand new car, enjoy for a period with one eye on the period of time during which the lemon law can be called and then do so just in time at the hint of a fault. If the OP genuinely loves the car he’d give Porsche another opportunity to fix it - for as long as it takes provided he/she gets a courtesy car while they’re doing so. If we all did what the OP has done twice now, the car companies would go out of business or design parts to last for a shorter period of time.

There is a pattern emerging, you're right. Manufacturers are building £200k cars that aren't as reliable as £30k ones. That's the problem that needs removing, not consumer rights.

funboxster said: It just says chassis system fault, then adapted driving required. It doesn't go into limp mode, not undriveable or needs recovery. They couldn't fix it after one go, why will they be able to sort at second attempt? Why? Because cars are complicated. The systems in modern cars are complex and interlinked, both of which can make troubleshooting a nightmare. From what you describe I doubt you'll get anywhere by involving lawyers, illumination of the chassis light represents many possible faults across many components, sensors and systems. Suggesting that they have one shot at fixing it will be disputed no end with such a complex car. One simple statement from the OPC may rubbish your claim "Sir the fault was fixed but it seems the electrical connector was not seated correctly during the repair causing it to reappear". But by this point you've lost your relationship with them - which may or may not bother you. If I was the DP picking this case up my assumption would be that you simply want out of an expensive car and I'd be very resistive to allowing you to reject the car but on the flip side, I'd do everything to alleviate the situation and avoid a legal wrangle. Why don't you suggest they swap your car with another 2,500 mile car that you are happy with spec wise? That would not cost the OPC a penny as once yours is fixed they'd simply sell it instead of the car they give you. You may even end up with a nicer spec'd car! Life is too short, work with them, not against.

maz8062 said: This is the second time that the OP has rejected a car - there’s a pattern emerging; buy brand new car, enjoy for a period with one eye on the period of time during which the lemon law can be called and then do so just in time at the hint of a fault. If the OP genuinely loves the car he’d give Porsche another opportunity to fix it - for as long as it takes provided he/she gets a courtesy car while they’re doing so. If we all did what the OP has done twice now, the car companies would go out of business or design parts to last for a shorter period of time. A little harsh, but you're entitled to an opinion. I'm more than happy to let them have another go at fixing,IF, the clock stops and if the same problem reoccurs, I can reject. I've had many cars over the years, probably 20-30 and have rejected two. If the car works, without reoccurring faults, I keep them for two years and change.

funboxster said: A little harsh, but you're entitled to an opinion. I'm more than happy to let them have another go at fixing,IF, the clock stops and if the same problem reoccurs, I can reject. I've had many cars over the years, probably 20-30 and have rejected two. If the car works, without reoccurring faults, I keep them for two years and change. If you've lost confidence in the car, see if they have another one that's similar & see where that leaves you financially.

I’d say a fair mileage deduction would be the excess mileage charge on a Porsche FS PCP- which looks to be 40.2p mile+vat.

Is there not a nice middle ground here? Ask the OPC to fix it and guarantee if a related fault reappears after x time they will buy it back? Appreciate there are holes in that but surely a sensible conversation can be had? I don’t disagree with OPs stance by the way, it should be faultless and reliable but there are so many nuances here i’d want to give them a chance to fix it with a solid back up plan.

OPOGTS said: I may be alone, but this sounds like a monumental overreaction to me! Me too. They've had one chance to fix it that's all. OP wants out and has seen the bath he was about to take so now wants to share that bath with the dealer and rhe fault light is his tenuous in.

nickfrog said: I agree, as consumers we should be even more naive and accept the salesman line that the car is complex. It doesn't really matter if there is a light on the dashboard as the MOT is not due anyway. I hate dealers more than most but they should be given more than 1 opportunity to fix a fault. No doubt all they did the first time was clear the codes anyway. Would be interesting to hear more on the actual fault.

belfry said: Also, would you accept a new 992 Turbo S as an alternative to a full refund? If I were the OP, I’d be looking to negotiate out of this car and into a new one with as minimal financial effect as possible. That will probably be more appealing to the dealer, therefore greasing the wheels of the process.

funboxster said: David W. said: I’d kill to have a bit more detail on the chassis system fault. Is it a warning light, does the car go into limphome mode, is it underivable and needed roadside recovery? Ordinarily it sounds like it should be fixable and in my 16+year experience the Porsche warranty system works very well resetting back to zero on a replacement part. Can’t see how you have lost confidence. It just says chassis system fault, then adapted driving required. It doesn't go into limp mode, not undriveable or needs recovery. They couldn't fix it after one go, why will they be able to sort at second attempt? As I've stated, emotion is taken out of this. It's a product that, imo, is not of satisfactory build quality, hence loss of confidence in car/brand. I've had two Boxsters from new, with no issues during ownership. I'm not rejecting because of depreciation issues, but perceived reliabilty of a premium product.. My Audi RS3 is one year old, with no issues from new. My wife had three Mini Cooper S' from new, each for three years. No problem again with them. My FF has had an engine control warning light and a parking sensor warning light on pretty much from new. They never managed to fix it, but it also does not impact how the car drives (well the parking sensors do not work and never really have worked - uselss anyway) ... I have now done more than 90k km in it, never thought about rejecting the car just because of some warning lights... I wish you good luck, but to me it sounds like you should just let them fix it - give you a nice loaner while the car is with them plus as somebody else pointed out maybe move you up the list for a GT allocation - and then continue to enjoy it.

I’d like to have a bit more detail on the chassis system fault. Is it a warning light, does the car go into limphome mode, is it un drivable and needed roadside recovery? Ordinarily it sounds like it should be fixable and in my 16+year experience the Porsche warranty system works very well resetting back to zero on a replacement part. Can’t see how you have lost confidence. Edit, spelling! Edited by David W. on Sunday 14th April 23:31 Edited by David W. on Sunday 14th April 23:34

maz8062 said: Wow, that’s some f ked up s t, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction. The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward. Indeed. Time for a GoFundMe for Porsche and its main dealers I think. Is there any way we can get them added to the National Lottery charities? Or maybe a special Dealers In Need day? maz8062 said: it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months. Or you could use a sophisticated electronic tool to nick one and keep it forever.

Presumably if the customer has fulfilled the criteria to reject the car the dealer has a strong case to similarly claim redress from Porsche.

Sukh13 said: Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution. Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know.

AyBee said: Sukh13 said: Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution. Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know. Apparently the dealer would rather refund him than fix the car in a timely fashion. Odd choice on their part but I guess they know which is the best option for them.

Forester1965 said: Presumably if the customer has fulfilled the criteria to reject the car the dealer has a strong case to similarly claim redress from Porsche. In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support.

Wills2 said: In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support. Some dealers are Porsche owned (like this one), some aren't. My post was in response to the poster implying dealers generally would fall foul of this. A B2B sale would be governed by the contract as you say, but also s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act with regards quality/fitness for purpose. In other words the dealer wouldn't be reliant only on their contract with the manufacturer but would also have a statutory basis for redress. Ultimately if pushed by the dealer the manufacturer bears the cost of faulty products, one way or another.

Slowboathome said: AyBee said: Sukh13 said: Sounds like a fair result, can't have a £200k with inherent faults and a poor timeline for a resolution. Fair? I'd say it was a bloody amazing result for the OP saving himself £50k in depreciation. I suspect the OP would have sought a different outcome had it been a 992 GT3RS he was in and not a Turbo S, but we will never know. Apparently the dealer would rather refund him than fix the car in a timely fashion. Odd choice on their part but I guess they know which is the best option for them. that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG . Then again Ferrari once kept my car for 6 months to fix a fault as the part was delayed and then didn't even honor the statutory warranty when it broke again within 18 months (warranty should be 24, but they only accept 12) - so I am no longer surprised by anything. Dealer lost the Ferrari franchise at some point, so I suspect they did some other stuff too...

that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG . I agree completely, it just feels like bad business ....

Forester1965 said: Wills2 said: In this case the dealership is Porsche AG owned ultimately, so it's a moot point, as far as the CRA is concerned the MOR is on point to provide redress to the consumer (take the product back) after that it all depends on your agreement with the manufacturer as to what you get from the them in terms of support. Some dealers are Porsche owned (like this one), some aren't. My post was in response to the poster implying dealers generally would fall foul of this. A B2B sale would be governed by the contract as you say, but also s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act with regards quality/fitness for purpose. In other words the dealer wouldn't be reliant only on their contract with the manufacturer but would also have a statutory basis for redress. Ultimately if pushed by the dealer the manufacturer bears the cost of faulty products, one way or another. Having spent 20 years sat in the middle of the retailer and manufacturer, it all comes down to who has the power, the return of faulty goods will be contractual, sometimes the retailer sucks it up other times the brand does and any compromise in between. Everything else is wandering about in the weeds looking for edge cases to waste your time on.

Agreed. The point being the CRA doesn't result in dealers going bust left right and centre as some claim will happen.

ChrisW. said: that is the part I do not get - they could probably have fixed it easily (give him a demonstrator as replacement for the time it takes) and if it was my dealership I would have done that asap to avoid any issues with Porsche AG . I agree completely, it just feels like bad business .... I had a problem with a leased Polo once. Fix was easy and obvious but it had to be booked in for 2 separate visits 'because flow chart'. To his credit, the service manager looked embarrassed. Maybe Porsche dealers are tightly constrained by their booking system. Edited by Slowboathome on Thursday 9th May 12:26

Jeremy-75qq8 said: Had they put it on a diagnostic machine when it arrived they would have seen what if was, realised it was a simple fix. Replaced the part and off we go. Instead I am in a merc e class for 3 weeks ( truly horrid thing ) and they are paying for it. Seems an odd way to run a business to me Loan car is paid for by Porsche if a car can’t be driven and gets recovered. Unfortunately the OPC bears none of that cost so there is no incentive to speed up repair of the car other than good customer service…. If it’s a loan car that gets provided while the car is being fixed then that is generally the OPC’s own loan car.

Abc321 said: maz8062 said: Wow, that’s some f ked up s t, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction. The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward. It’s been an eye opener for me all of this rejection malarkey, but I think it’s loaded against the dealers because cars do go wrong and for the unscrupulous, it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months. I'm sure Porsche won't lose any sleep over £60k. You're right that cars do go wrong. And so OP gave the dealer chance to rectify. if they cannot, you reject. This is why there are these policies/laws/rules in place. Good result OP, I would have done the same. Quite! The solution is make cars that work. Then no one will give them back. They choose instead to produce cars with known faults with no fix. Best they suck up the costs that brings. Mind you, that applies to most manufacturers these days.

As another postscript, the car I rejected is already back on sale on the OPC's website, at £10k less than I paid. So, as their customer they were going to make me wait a month for them to look at it. They fixed (or reset it) in under a week!

funboxster said: As another postscript, the car I rejected is already back on sale on the OPC's website, at £10k less than I paid. So, as their customer they were going to make me wait a month for them to look at it. They fixed (or reset it) in under a week! Absolute shysters. Another nail in the coffin for the posters who opined that you should keep it...

Sounds like their workshop time is worth more than £10k. Or they're idiots.

maz8062 said: funboxster said: And so, a postscript to my OP in mid April, which generated a hell of a lot of responses. I know that some didn't agree with my decision to reject the car, but I would counter by saying, if it was your new nigh on £200k car and these faults started occurring within the first month(s), with a month's wait before they could look at it, what decision would you make? Put up with it, keep your fingers crossed it doesn't come back or decide to reject? The CRA 2015 is biased in the customer's favour for the first 6 months. The pendulum swings back in the seller's favour after that and the consumer has to prove the fault was there from the beginning (as I understand it) The dealer did accept rejection, based on the fact the car became faulty in the first 30 days and that they'd had one chance to fix it.(Their words) They agreed to refund me the purchase price of the car, less 45ppm for mileage covered, so £900 deducted. Again, you might not agree with this, but they can deduct an allowance for usage, which seems reasonable. The CRA is poor in this respect, with little guidance, but surely the fairest way is based on mileage and the HMRC figure. Anyway, based on the CRA government guide for business that I read, they can't deduct depreciation. I never had buyer's remorse, despite what some said. I planned to keep it for two years, but I lost complete confidence in the car and the brand. Thanks to those who pm'd directly with their input. Much appreciated. Wow, that’s some f ked up s t, man. £900 for 6 months and 2500 miles usage of a £200k car, a car that will barely be worth £140k trade if that. East London Porsche have a MY22 with low mileage for £135k retail on their forecourt, so someone has lost a shed load of cash on this transaction. The OP has got a result yes, but surely this cannot be a sustainable model for any company, not just a car company, going forward. It’s been an eye opener for me all of this rejection malarkey, but I think it’s loaded against the dealers because cars do go wrong and for the unscrupulous, it only takes a sophisticated diagnostic tool to manufacture or mimic a fault and one could get to drive a car for peanuts and hand it back within 6 months. Regardless of this and the other outcomes for the OP, I’m sure he’ll take on board all comments not just those that support his stance. Good luck with your next purchase and please start a new thread if you decide to reject that one too within 6 months I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it. If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have. Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46

To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today. So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad. One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine !

Jeremy-75qq8 said: To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today. So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad. One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine ! Unless the dealer fixed it, pretty pissed off I imagine and guess they may find out quite soon.

Jeremy-75qq8 said: To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today. So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad. One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine ! £10k = £10,000

FMOB said: I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it. If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have. Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46 I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable. I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle. Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it. Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions.

^ speak to your MP if you feel the law is failing the Corporates. Or spend £200k on a car and get a sense of perspective.

As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership

PinkHouse said: As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)?

I suppose if you air your business on a public forum, there’s gonna be all sorts of opinions and conjecture. Saying the op thrashed his car certainly is conjecture….

Yes layering assumptions is rarely a very rational behaviour.

Forester1965 said: PinkHouse said: As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)? He's done nothing wrong in my opinion but as a business owner you'd always want to favour doing business with customers that don't give you headaches

funboxster said: As another postscript, the car I rejected is already back on sale on the OPC's website, at £10k less than I paid. So, as their customer they were going to make me wait a month for them to look at it. They fixed (or reset it) in under a week! Sounds to be they have reset the fault codes and relisted it for sale! Could be beneficial to make others aware of what car this may be so they don’t get burnt.

They tried to make me keep my turbo, but I said, "No, no, no" Yes, It was black, but I sent it back, it was the chassis you know, know, know I ain't got the time and my dealer thinks Its fine He's tried to make me keep my turbo but it won't go, go, go. With credit to Amy Winehouse…

Brilliant

maz8062 said: FMOB said: I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it. If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have. Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46 I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable. I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle. Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it. Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions. You can look at that way but the flip side is the OP has bought a product in good faith that has become faulty, he has given the seller a chance to fix it, despite the seller being the manufacturer with all of the resources that entails has failed to fix it. Irrespective of the cost please explain why would any buyer put up with that? You reference the OP doing this twice which seems to be your main beef with it, the OP has put up a significant amount of money to buy the car in the first place, I do not believe they looked at the purchase and said it will go faulty so I can buy it, use it, thrash it and get my money back whilst running the risk it might not be faulty and they would stuck with it. If you were in the position and you maybe you are to buy a £200k car and got into the OP's situation, I assume you would just take all the crap a car dealer can dish out, be left with a lemon and still be smiling about it, somehow I doubt it and you would do exactly what the OP has done.

It's worth repeating that the OP's first rejection was on a 2018 McLaren. Does that count as a rejection or simply an expectation?

PinkHouse said: Forester1965 said: PinkHouse said: As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)? He's done nothing wrong in my opinion but as a business owner you'd always want to favour doing business with customers that don't give you headaches Well in that case ensure the product is perfect and the customer service similar

ninepoint2 said: Well in that case ensure the product is perfect and the customer service similar Exactly. I don't understand what planet people on here, except that it's probably fully green. I bet the dealership was all over the OP during the buying process, then as soon as the car develops a fault they clearly do a cursory inspection then tell him to come back in a month - for a job that they could apparently fix within a week when it's their money on the line!!! Give your necks a tug people.

PinkHouse said: Forester1965 said: PinkHouse said: As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I wonder how many here would entertain his business if you owned an independent dealership What specifically do you think the OP has done wrong (in any sense, moral or legal)? He's done nothing wrong in my opinion but as a business owner you'd always want to favour doing business with customers that don't give you headaches And as a consumer you want to buy from a business that isn't going to take the piss when there's a problem.

maz8062 said: FMOB said: I'm not sure why you are struggling with this, the same legislation applies irrespective of what you are buying as a consumer. It applies to a £50 camera or a £200k car but the product has to be faulty and the manufacturer gets one chance to fix it. If you think it shouldn't apply then feel free to purchase through a business then see how few rights you have. Edited by FMOB on Friday 10th May 19:46 I struggle with it because I view it that the OP has twice used a product extensively, an expensive product; enjoyed it, thrashed it and not paid for it. Further, that same product has devalued significantly as a result of the op’s use but someone else, a corporate, has to foot that bill even though the op would have been offered other remedial action to help. A full refund sans £900 seems drastic, unfair and unsustainable. I’ll give you an example: a 992 Turbo S could be rented or hired for £650 per day plus a £5k deposit. For 6 months it would cost circa £100k assuming one could negotiate a discount, £117k if not. The op has had the usage for £900. That is where I struggle. Yes, I understand it is the law and it’s an expensive product, and the manufacturer should make sure the things work, but being one that tinkers a lot on my cars using dealer grade diagnostic tools, I know these cars are very complicated and my cars are 2007 and 2006 tech. Solutions are always found, that’s why they offer warranties, but if people could just reject it after use within 6 months, I just don’t get it, unless one doesn’t want the car anymore in which case they should cover the cost of their usage of it. Anyway, I’ve been a lone voice against in this drama, but we all know that one can never win an argument on the internet - we just all have opinions. I do feel I have to reply to this Maz. You're fully entitled to an opinion on the decision I took, but I have to take issue with some points, as you don't know me. I've never thrashed( I value my licence too much) or tracked any of my cars. I don't buy an expensive supercar, on the hope I can reject it asap, get my money back and trial the next toy, at no or minimal expense. Before the TS, I had a DB11, for five years. Why five years? Because it never missed a beat. I only moved it on, because it was then 7 years old, was concerned about possible big repair bills on the way and the opportunity to buy the TS came up. The McLaren I rejected was off the road for two of the nine months I owned it. FYI, I accepted a £20k hit, which was basically the cost of the specced extras. They refunded the basic price to me. I was really gutted when the TS went wrong in month one and I could have rejected it then and got all my money back, but thought no, let's give the OPC a chance. This was before they told me one month's wait to look at it. The seeds of doubt were then sown. When it went wrong again, in month four, with the same problem and one month wait time again, my head then overruled my heart and the TS became a faulty product, not a complex car, that i should accept will go wrong. I never started this post to put one over the OPC. I was just looking for advice on whether there was guidance anywhere on what would be reasonable to expect as a deduction for wear and tear/mileage. Let's just agree to disagree.

robj4 said: £10k = £10,000 I have no idea what this means. The car was sold for £1000 less than i paid. If you think this is £10,000 then up to you.

robj4 said: Jeremy-75qq8 said: To put some of this j perspective the car I rejected was up for about £1000 less than I paid for it. It sold today. So the dealer " lost " £1000 which on the tale la of doom on here is not so bad. One has to question how someone would feel knowing they had bought a rejected car. Worth asking the question I imagine ! £10k = £10,000 Funboxster, the OP, said his rejected car was listed for sale at £10,000 less than the amount he paid/was refunded. Jeremy-75qq8, a different poster who rejected a different car, said that the car he rejected and was refunded for, sold for £1,000 less than the refund amount. Edited by InitialDave on Saturday 11th May 21:31

funboxster said: I do feel I have to reply to this Maz. You're fully entitled to an opinion on the decision I took, but I have to take issue with some points, as you don't know me. I've never thrashed( I value my licence too much) or tracked any of my cars. I don't buy an expensive supercar, on the hope I can reject it asap, get my money back and trial the next toy, at no or minimal expense. Before the TS, I had a DB11, for five years. Why five years? Because it never missed a beat. I only moved it on, because it was then 7 years old, was concerned about possible big repair bills on the way and the opportunity to buy the TS came up. The McLaren I rejected was off the road for two of the nine months I owned it. FYI, I accepted a £20k hit, which was basically the cost of the specced extras. They refunded the basic price to me. I was really gutted when the TS went wrong in month one and I could have rejected it then and got all my money back, but thought no, let's give the OPC a chance. This was before they told me one month's wait to look at it. The seeds of doubt were then sown. When it went wrong again, in month four, with the same problem and one month wait time again, my head then overruled my heart and the TS became a faulty product, not a complex car, that i should accept will go wrong. I never started this post to put one over the OPC. I was just looking for advice on whether there was guidance anywhere on what would be reasonable to expect as a deduction for wear and tear/mileage. Let's just agree to disagree. I think there is actually a limit to the entitlement of opinions. And people shouldn't be entitled to their facts. A collection of assumptions, most of them absurd, doesn't even qualify as an "opinion" from my perspective. Thankfully, people like that are rare, even on PH.

GT4RS said: Sounds to be they have reset the fault codes and relisted it for sale! Could be beneficial to make others aware of what car this may be so they don’t get burnt. Respect to the OP for not naming the dealer but it’s not hard to spot the car based on the info already given.

Gnevans said: They tried to make me keep my turbo, but I said, "No, no, no" Yes, It was black, but I sent it back, it was the chassis you know, know, know I ain't got the time and my dealer thinks Its fine He's tried to make me keep my turbo but it won't go, go, go. With credit to Amy Winehouse… This is brilliant Is this the car: https://finder.porsche.com/gb/en-GB/details/QW76W8 If it is, it’s a beautiful car. Nice colour. If not, carry on.

It is a lovely colour, however 'Ice Grey Metallic' is misleading imo. Its white to my eyes and the config doesn't deviate at all it seems from GT Silver and that!

Abc321 said: It is a lovely colour, however 'Ice Grey Metallic' is misleading imo. Its white to my eyes and the config doesn't deviate at all it seems from GT Silver and that! they had an ice grey 911 in my local OPC for a while and in the flesh it's amazing. So much depth to it, there's little hints of colour depending on how the light hits it. for me, much more interesting than GT silver.