What seems to have been forgotten in the comparison between the CR and PD is the reason why the CR engine was developed in the first place.

With the DPF fitted it is much cleaner than the PD engine.

Although both cars are certified to the Euro 4 standard, in actual fact the the CR engine complies with the Euro 5 standard and also comes close to meeting the Euro 6 standard (falls short in a couple of areas)

This is ackowlegded in the Vehicle Equipment Codes sticker in these vehicles:

Code "7MB" = Emissions concept EU 4 plus

It was because of the CR engine I bought my Skoda. I would not have bought it otherwise. Probably would have gone for a 308 or a Prius instead...

A Prius?!

Do you also believe that dihyrdogen oxide is killing is all?

The Prius is great, except that in order to have the batteries produced, which btw don't last all that long, is extremely bad for the environment. The mpg is sh*te compared to a derv, or even compared to a petrol, due to the massive weight of the car.

They're good for lots of start/stop traffic where the battery has sufficient charge, for sure. But not perfect by any stretch.

The CR is better on emissions, and the reason why PD is being dropped is because it is too hard to get better emissions on those, plus CR is more common (no pun intended) so more R&D goes on that may be shared

I can't say i agree that you won't get much.

The OP was clearly mis-sold a car and so has full rights to take it back and reject it as goods not as described.

The dealer can make a small mileage charge, but they can not do anything about the extra name on the V5 as that has been caused by their own mistakes.

I'd be wanting either the correct car, a full refund minus a small agreed charge for mileage, or about £3k off as there is a difference in road tax, especially under the new system and there will be a difference when it comes to selling the car. I've obtained a good discount in the past by pointing out the engine was Euro III not Euro IV and similar such things for cars just before an engine change.

Except the product doesn't exist:rolleyes: (well no for rm in anycase)

Where did that go, I'm sure I saw a poster for it in the post office only last week :confused:

Originally Posted by postmanpat

Except the product doesn't exist:rolleyes: (well no for rm in anycase)

Where did that go, I'm sure I saw a poster for it in the post office only last week :confused:

Royal Mail Special Delivery is available with guaranteed delivery by 9:00am OR 'next day' (by 1:00pm); not as initially suggested by 11:00am.

Sale of goods and consumer protection is out of my area of expertise, but I can give this advice...

Keep copies of all the letters you send - not just the proof of postage but actuall copies of the words you wrote.

If my recollection of contract law is accurate then you're entitled to one of two remedies...

1) Damages - the aim of the law in damages is to put the parties in the position they SHOULD have been in but for the breach of the contract. The contract was for you to pay them £x, and for them to provide you with the car on the invoice. If they didn't do that, and you request damages as your remedy, then you should be compensated by the trader so that you are not financially out of pocket for the breach. You would also be entitled to some (relatively minor) level of punitive damages for the inconvenience and "loss of enjoyment" caused by having been sold the wrong car.

2) "Specific performance" - this is where the courts order the parties to do that which they contracted to do. You have done your bit (paid the money) and so they can be forced to do their bit (provide the car you thought you were buying). The court can only order specific performance where it is physically possible, so if the dealer cannot source and identical car then damages is the only route.

Quantifying damages is a whole specialist area in itself!

When negotiating with the dealer, both parties need to bear this in mind - ultimately you are both negotiating to avoid the time, hassle and expense of going to the small claims court to sort it out.

You are definitely in the box seat on this one though - the invoice is cast iron proof of what was agreed between the parties.

The dealer bleating that there is "little difference" is nonsense - he's just squirming. And people's observations that there is little practical difference are missing the point, so far as I am concerned. You have not been given what you asked for. The end.

Good luck.

And get some specialist advice on board quickly. With the very greatest of respect to them, may I suggest you ignore the CAB, go straight to a high street law firm who deal with consumer rights issues, and get a letter before claim sent pretty quick. In the vast majority of cases that is all it takes to have the dealer reaching for the wallet. Most firms will do this for a fairly modest charge too.

Phil

Regardless of what erveryone is saying the question is, are you happy with the car?? If you go in to them playing hardball and demanding thousands then they are more likely to make you take them to court and/or refund your money less reasonable mileage costs (maybe as high as £1 per/mile maybe as low as 10p seen contracts with both figures for excess mileage) How many miles have you done?? I presume that you payed well under list especially with all the options, so how will you replace it?, and wether the courts will take into account such a discount I don't know.

I am happy with the car - I certainly was, until finding out its the PD engine, and then driving a CR for comparison. The CR engine is in a different league, much smoother. Makes the car sound almost petrol like too.

Am I looking for thousands in compensation - NO, I am realistic, thats one thing the supermarket won't do.

Do I want to go to court and risk a long drawn out argument - Not really, but out of principal, if they ignore me and hope I go away, then Yes I will.

As far as I can gather, it appears that one of 4 things could happen :-

1. I get ignored.

2. I get an offer of compenstion.

3. They source me an identical car with the CR engine - unlikely with all the spec.

4. They give me a refund

What I would like - A full refund - some great bargains out there at the moment.

What I think will happen - they'll come back with some compensation figure (about £200) , at that point I'll laugh at them and go stright to a solicitor.

What I would like - A full refund - some great bargains out there at the moment.

A full refund will never happen anyway, they will deduct 4 months worth of mileage and also subtract a sum which they consider appropriate for the addition of another owner to the V5, and then you will have to go an hunt out another car with less money than you had to start with. The court in this scenario will side with the dealer, as 4 months is a long time to have use of a car. Things would have been more favourable had the error been spotted within 4 weeks of getting the car.

A full refund will never happen anyway, they will deduct 4 months worth of mileage and also subtract a sum which they consider appropriate for the addition of another owner to the V5, and then you will have to go an hunt out another car with less money than you had to start with. The court in this scenario will side with the dealer, as 4 months is a long time to have use of a car. Things would have been more favourable had the error been spotted within 4 weeks of getting the car, which to be fair I think the V5 does state the engine is a PD rather than a CR (Mine does anyway).

Hmm...not sure about that.I'm don't think that the court would allow them to subtract a sum for having another owner on the V5, given that it is entirely their fault for mis-selling the car in the first place.

And if they don't co-operate, don't neglect public outcry, the media etc. Greatly under-rated is bad publicity!

We had a case against E-Bookers that was going nowhere till I sent it to my local paper and Nectar (as in Nectar points) picked it up. They, plus my MP, made such a stink that I got a full ex gratia refund. I don't think I'd have got a bent ha'penny otherwise.

Residuals quoted by anyone are bunkum, the 2.0 tfsi should have retained iirc49 % after 3 years according to mags back in 2006, believe me it hasn't

How unreasonable of them not to know there was a global economic collapse on the way....

How unreasonable of them not to know there was a global economic collapse on the way....

exactly, however massive discounts and options becoming standard long before economic collapse have just as much bearing I feel.

For all those interested, just had a call back from the supermarket.

They say they will be talking to trading standards themselves tomorrow, to discuss the fact that I have had use of the car for 4 months and put 3700 miles on the clock. They say they will then come back with a figure based on my old car back (they just so happen to still have it unsold), plus the price differerence I paid - minus this figure they get back from trading standards.

Who do they think they are kidding.:-

1. I certainly don't want my old car back, which will now incur an additional owner and will no doubt have depriciated more than the skoda has in the last 4 months. Just checked their website and they have it up for £11499, thats only 499 above what they payed me for it 4 months ago as part-ex.

2. They are going to charge me the cost of using the skoda for 4 months and putting 3700 miles on it.

Anyone got any advice on the part-ex being forced back to me.

Friends with more legal knowledge than me suggest the part-ex has nothing to do with it and I don't have to accept it back. They purchased my vehicle and used the money from that to put against the skoda.

G

how are they not within their rights to charge for the use of the car for 4 months?

I would think that they are saying that if you want to effectively declare the deal void they will return your PX, and you return the Octy plus a fee for using it - hence I dare say that you'd be in the odd position of owing them money. For them it'd be a golden oportunity to punt your PX straight back at you.

In reality I suspect they'll be expecting you to say don't worry about it and we'll all be friends.

For all those interested, just had a call back from the supermarket.

They say they will be talking to trading standards themselves tomorrow, to discuss the fact that I have had use of the car for 4 months and put 3700 miles on the clock. They say they will then come back with a figure based on my old car back (they just so happen to still have it unsold), plus the price differerence I paid - minus this figure they get back from trading standards.

Who do they think they are kidding.:-

1. I certainly don't want my old car back, which will now incur an additional owner and will no doubt have depriciated more than the skoda has in the last 4 months. Just checked their website and they have it up for £11499, thats only 499 above what they payed me for it 4 months ago as part-ex.

2. They are going to charge me the cost of using the skoda for 4 months and putting 3700 miles on it.

Anyone got any advice on the part-ex being forced back to me.

Friends with more legal knowledge than me suggest the part-ex has nothing to do with it and I don't have to accept it back. They purchased my vehicle and used the money from that to put against the skoda.

G

You need to go and talk to a solicitor my friend, you may well find trading standards come back with 2 separate answers, no good for you! English Law is very complex, must people don't know there rights and then think they do the wrong ones... All in the wording.

james

They will argue that the extra owner on your px offsets the extra ownrer on the vrs, but the vrs is the one with the extra miles on, so in effect you will be paying to take back your px :eek: This could end up costing you one hell of a lot of cash, even if you may get it back after a long drawn out legal battle. It may suck but i get the feeling they aren't going to make it easy for you.

rethinking and talking about this with someone i do think you shouldn't have to pay as the **** up is in no way your fault and entirely the garages fault so all costs should be picked up by them.

in my new opinion.

For all those interested, just had a call back from the supermarket.

They say they will be talking to trading standards themselves tomorrow, to discuss the fact that I have had use of the car for 4 months and put 3700 miles on the clock. They say they will then come back with a figure based on my old car back (they just so happen to still have it unsold), plus the price differerence I paid - minus this figure they get back from trading standards.

Who do they think they are kidding.:-

1. I certainly don't want my old car back, which will now incur an additional owner and will no doubt have depriciated more than the skoda has in the last 4 months. Just checked their website and they have it up for £11499, thats only 499 above what they payed me for it 4 months ago as part-ex.

2. They are going to charge me the cost of using the skoda for 4 months and putting 3700 miles on it.

Anyone got any advice on the part-ex being forced back to me.

Friends with more legal knowledge than me suggest the part-ex has nothing to do with it and I don't have to accept it back. They purchased my vehicle and used the money from that to put against the skoda.

G

I'm not a lawyer, but unfortunately I know just enough about the law to be dangerous to myself. So please don't take this as gospel.

As far as whether the part-exchange is part of the deal for the Skoda, or a separate deal, I would have thought that it was a separate deal.

If your paperwork says that they were charging you £X for the Skoda which comprises of £Y cash/finance plus £Z that they're giving you for the part-exchange, then I would think that means that the part exchange was a linked but separate and prior transaction. (If the paperwork said the Skoda was in exchange for £Y cash/finance + your old car, then I'd say your old car was part of the deal). But that's just my untrained opinion.

I also think that to an extent that it's irrelevant; you have a contract with them. Offer acceptance and consideration, and all that; they offered to sell you a CR VRS, you accepted, you paid up, they're obliged to honour the contract. What they can do is say "oh dear, we've fouled up, we will offer you the option of cancelling the contract" - which would lead to you getting your old car back, but I don't think that you're bound to accept their offer. Getting them to adhere to the terms of the contract and produce a CR VRS might take legal action. In effect any offer of compensation (such as if they said "you keep the car and we'll give you £500" is effectively saying that they're not going to fulfil the contract and that in return for you allowing them to default, they'll bung you 500 notes as compensation. Given the assumption that the the original contract wasn't unfair (and since presumably it was their standard contract and they were happy with the price, and CR VRS's were available at the time - and that they're professional car sellers, rather than naive 16 year old kids being conned by a record label - then I doubt they could claim the contract was unfair), I struggle to see how they could duck out of it, if you were prepared to go the distance, legally. They're probably figuring that you'll get scared or p*ssed off by the process and settle for some sort of offer in the end.

As for charging you for the use of the PD VRS, I can see both sides on that. At worst, they could charge you for the difference between what they charged you for it 4 months ago new, and what it would sell for now used. I presume a counter-argument would be that much of that will be the initial depreciation which occurs pretty much the moment you buy any new car, and it would be unfair to make you suffer that twice (once on the PD VRS which you return and then agaon on the new CR VRS that they finally give you), and that you should pay a lesser amount - say the difference between a one month old car with one owner and 1,000 miles and a five month old car with one owner and 4,700 miles. Or maybe the cost of having a lease or hire car for the similar period. I can't see you getting away with using the PD VRS for nothing (OK, for nothing except tax and fuel) unless the car supermarket subsequently start acting very nasty and a judge decides to punish them for it! I think your best bet is to start looking at what you (and any court) might think is an acceptable charge for use of the PD VRS.

But remember, I'm not a lawyer, and I think you may need to go and see one from the way this seems to be developing.

As an aside, as well as any effect on resale value of CR vs PD, are there any other cost arguments you could make? VED band? mpg? I presume it's too early to compare long term reliability, but even anecdotal evidence of differences in running costs or efficiencies/problems might be useful.

rethinking and talking about this with someone i do think you shouldn't have to pay as the **** up is in no way your fault and entirely the garages fault so all costs should be picked up by them.

in my new opinion.

I see your point Ben but playing devils advocate, and assuming the Supermarket aren't going to bend over and take a dry one right up them, they will be saying and doing whatever they feel they can get away with to turn the situation around.

rethinking and talking about this with someone i do think you shouldn't have to pay as the **** up is in no way your fault and entirely the garages fault so all costs should be picked up by them.

in my new opinion.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, whilst ever they (the supermarket) are arguing the opposite, then it will cost the op in legal letters, and eventually court costs, not to mention they will be able to argue that during this time he continued to use the Skoda, despite knowing it was not the correct vehicle, in effect accepting it.. No doubt they do hope he rolls over rather than going to the expense. In the meantime who are they?? are they likely to go bust and change names in the next xx months????? Wait and see what they come back with, but even with them handing back the cash paid and the PX then it sounds like the OP won't be happy.

I think you've opened a right can of worms that could see you loose out without proper paid advice.

:iagree:

Let them worry about the mileage costs , let them take you to court for it and then they will need to be approved and considered fair by a judge they cant just pick a number

Any costs you incur can be offset by virtue of the fact they deceived you by selling you the wrong car

I firmly think they are trying to put the frighteners on you hoping you will go away , the fact is you were mis-sold a car

It IS going to be a fair bit of hassle but its unlikely IMO to end up needing court action

Its a waste time phoning on things like this you need to make clear what you expect and do that in writing , once you have done that any mileage you cover is down to them , they cant expect you to be without a car

You could give them a timescale ie 2 weeks and then threaten to hire a car

I will add i'm not a lawyer but i've been in this situation with a motorcycle , it turned out to be an import and worth considerably less than a UK model , they ended up giving my old bike back to me and paying me compensation.