Alfa Romeo Forum banner
1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A question to pose to you all.

What actually happens to cars that, for whatever reason, get rejected by the owner :confused:

Now please, this is not another thread knocking Alfas or ARUK, but a serious question.

I ask this because, both my previous 159 saloon rejections, DU56YJL and WN56EOU have been put back into end-user circulation very quickly and I know for example that the 1st 159 has been nothing but hell for its new owner :tut::mad: Seized water pump, buggered engine etc etc. :(

Both my previous cars were rejected for differing, but SERIOUS issues. Total brake failure, engine stutter issues, paint, gearbox, transmission, exhaust, breakdowns etc. I think in total I've been recoverd 8 times in both previous cars. Pretty serious then.

Now before you think I'm a whinging old sod that can't put up with 'niggles' and 'quirks', I remind you that we've run Alfas for many years and until last year had never rejected a single one - such were the issues with the last 2 159's

Also, I'm being contacted by DVLA and HPI who for some reason have got wind of something fishy... :eek::cry:


Why can ARUK and dealers not see that these cars are lemons and pull them back into direct AR control and use them for example as training cars or donor cars... :(
In fact comments were passed by interested parties about dealer greed and financial compensation issues with ARUK.

In my humble opinion its the earlier UK cars with the majority of the serious issues and it's these that are 'spoiling' the reputation for the rest.

Surely allowing a problem-riddled car back out with another customer just exacerbates the situation.:confused:

Comments welcome :)

(BTW my new TI is WONDERFUL and feels a totally different animal! :cool: )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,287 Posts
Dunno' mate, in all honesty. Our 147 was a pleasure to own, just feel for the purchaser who now has problems with her. Guess the rejects have to be rectified, but is it always a product fault, or harsh ownership? Why should a '51 147 suffer so few faults by comparison??:):
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I agreed Zed :)

But for example after 4 visits visits to a dealer to fix a major issue, they can't fix it, the technicians hold their hands up and say they can't fix it, who at the end of the day CAN actually fix it :confused:

It seems to me that a 'make do and mend' philosophy overides and the next owner of that vehicle, totally in the dark of its history, has to stand the pain. :( It just seems so very wrong. :rolleyes::(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Some very good points there, and I'm sure we'd all like to know. I've never actually rejected a car, but I know people who have, and I think all manufacturers & dealers have different policies on this. A friend rejected a very troublesome Mondeo three years ago. After endless argument and prevarication, Ford eventually replaced the car when threatened with legal action, and the dealer just gave it a wash and brush up and put it on their forecourt as "Low mileage, one local owner", I wouldn't have wanted to buy that one. I did have a substandard Golf GTi back in 93/4 though. The problems were as much with the supplying dealer as with the car, and after some good natured but firm negotiations, VW themselves persuaded another fairly local dealer to take the thing over, extended the warranty indefinitely, they were only 12 months back then, and offered to knock off £1500, which was a sizable proportion of the cost of a new one back then, if I bought another VW which encouraged by their attitude I did, another four in fact over the next twelve or so years. Dealers (and manufacturers) can be very short-sighted about this sort of thing. My ex-Mondeo owning friend is still boring anyone who will listen with this saga today, not exactly helpful publicity for Ford or the Dealer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,998 Posts
Theoretically then, Alfa's problems could be pinpointed down to a handful of cars that keep getting rejected and pushed on to the next poor unsuspecting owner :p

Seriously though, they shouldn't be allowed to put these back up for sale, especially under the sale of goods act, knowing them not to be fit for purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The fact is that dealers are independent businesses and have a much smaller "picture" to deal with, hence putting them against the best interests of the company at times.

Yes, but this is my point. They're NOT putting the best interests of their 'small business' first. At least in certain cases I know of, other than my own.

Surely allowing a 'lemon' back onto the open market, knowing full well the history of the car, having already had the financial backing of the franchisee (ARUK) is more than 'sharp practice' :confused:

A certain guy I know in Italy knows that this practice occurs but its often under financial pressure and the out and out desperation of the dealers to 'sell at any cost' and 'make x% margin' all the time that makes the whole cycle worse. :(

Car dealers generally have had a good few years profit now, for example ARUK have financially assisted the building of showrooms, subsidised transactions, facilitated exchanges of vehicles etc etc.

Now things are financially tight, I can only see my OP getting more and more common, in a bid to make 'added value' to each and every transaction. Lets not forget a dealership is an expense place to run - lots of salaries, some expensive site rates and fleets of vehicles to run for staff etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Theoretically then, Alfa's problems could be pinpointed down to a handful of cars that keep getting rejected and pushed on to the next poor unsuspecting owner :p

Seriously though, they shouldn't be allowed to put these back up for sale, especially under the sale of goods act, knowing them not to be fit for purpose.

Perhaps its not so far from the truth Jimmer. ;)

Sale of goods act :confused: How can the new owner prove the history of the car :confused:

Who take responsibility:confused: ARUK,the dealer, insurance under writers :confused:


@Kayem - exactly the type of example I was thinking of - it does no favours to the buyer, the seller or the manufacturer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,998 Posts
Sale of goods act :confused: How can the new owner prove the history of the car :confused:
Exactly, so that's how they're able to get away with it. Basically though, the dealer is aware that the car is not "fit for purpose" ie it doesn't work as it's meant to. So, don't quote me on this, he's breaking the sale of goods act, selling a product he knows not to be working.

Who take responsibility:confused: ARUK,the dealer, insurance under writers :confused:
Let's forget we're talking about cars here. Let's say it's a digital camera that you bought from Argos. You buy it, you get it home, it doesn't work. You take it back to Argos, they exchange it, you're happy. Argos will then send the camera back to the manufacturer and they get their refund, Argos is happy. The manufacturer is left with a dud camera, that it made in the first place.

The responsibility has to end with the manufacturer. They should be able to make the product right in the first place. When it comes back to them they can rectify it, then put it back out on the market, albeit as a 'refurbished product'.

Why should cars be any different?!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I agree about the costly issues of running a dealership and squeezed profit margins etc, but this is not the point - an unfit car is being resold time and again and therefore the MANUFACTURER surely must take responsibility to safeguard their reputation and remove the vehicle from the roads, not place the onus on the dealer to do so.
These reject cars should IMO be scrapped forthwith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,154 Posts
Given that I doubt the dealers believe there's anything wrong with the car, they're bound to just give it a clean and stick it on the forecourt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Let's forget we're talking about cars here. Let's say it's a digital camera that you bought from Argos. You buy it, you get it home, it doesn't work. You take it back to Argos, they exchange it, you're happy. Argos will then send the camera back to the manufacturer and they get their refund, Argos is happy. The manufacturer is left with a dud camera, that it made in the first place.
And the camera gets refurbished, and then sold on as refurbished.

I've bought several cameras/printers/etc in this way. But at least I knew there may be/have been problems. Aware to keep an eye open and payed a way lower price.

Cars that have been rejected and "refurbished" should have that noted at the DVLA as a seperate insurance type catagory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
These reject cars should IMO be scrapped forthwith.
I don't disagree.

So are we saying that the owner of a rejected vehicle gets full refund from the dealer, who then claims from the manufacturer, who then scraps the car, uses it for training or uses it as a donor car...:confused:

Will this then ensure that the next mechanical design of the car from the manufacturer is better and only tried and tested technology is used.:confused: I highlight the ongoing issues with DPF and how it seems, we the user, are the guinea pigs for a new technology for AR and therefore so many problems...

OR is it that the training of technicians in 'Authorised Service Centres' is to such a low level, that they can only change oil and filters, so major issues always have to be deferred back to ARUK HQ Technical or AR Tasio (sp?) for 'rejection level' issues :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Exactly, so that's how they're able to get away with it. Basically though, the dealer is aware that the car is not "fit for purpose" ie it doesn't work as it's meant to. So, don't quote me on this, he's breaking the sale of goods act, selling a product he knows not to be working.



Let's forget we're talking about cars here. Let's say it's a digital camera that you bought from Argos. You buy it, you get it home, it doesn't work. You take it back to Argos, they exchange it, you're happy. Argos will then send the camera back to the manufacturer and they get their refund, Argos is happy. The manufacturer is left with a dud camera, that it made in the first place.

The responsibility has to end with the manufacturer. They should be able to make the product right in the first place. When it comes back to them they can rectify it, then put it back out on the market, albeit as a 'refurbished product'.

Why should cars be any different?!
But the only thing I would add is that the shop who sold the camera isn't expected to be able to fix it.
With car dealers, they are trained - at great expense - to be able to fix the cars in the first place.

Therefore if a rejection of a vehicle is accepted by the manufacturer because the dealer COULDNT fix it to a high standard, then that car should not be sold as refirbished or repaired. Perhaps as mentioned by BRS, the DVLA should rate the car differently :confused:

Ie you pays your money, you gets your car... :eek: A big ol' can of worms...:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I couldn't agree more Hunter. Not only are they damaging to the brand but owing to the severity of the issues encountered some of them are frankly dangerous.

It's important to note that rejecting a car is not like taking a suit back because you got it home and decided you didn't really like it. It's a laborious process and one which I am convinced people don't enter into lightly. With the cases I'm aware of on here, including my own, it's clear we desperately wanted our cars to be a success and genuinely didn't want to have to go through the process we did owing to a huge amount of goodwill invested in the brand - hence these rejected cars now in circulation really are total lemons.

The fact that these cars are very quickly put back onto forecourts is concerning. Mine is now for sale here and unless it has some serious work carried out to it I would have to recommend anybody interested to steer well clear of it. This might sound harsh on the dealer, for whom I have some sympathy because I understand that ARUK often strong-arm them a bit in these situations, but on the day I handed it back that car was seriously faulty to the point of being dangerous.

RSK
Exactly my feelings RSK - only you worded it better... :lol::thumbs:

There is no way I would have go through all this pain (twice!!!) if my car hadn't got major issues that rendered the car usless to me.

Rejecting a car is a pain. The obstacles put up by dealer and OEM are sometimes intentional to make your life that much more difficult. An easy route it certainly aint. :tut:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,177 Posts
A question to pose to you all.

What actually happens to cars that, for whatever reason, get rejected by the owner :confused:
As I understand it they respray them, change the reg plates and then give them back to you.
:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,180 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
As I understand it they respray them, change the reg plates and then give them back to you.
:D
Smart arse! :p:lol:

But seriously, isn't that so very wrong :confused::rant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,518 Posts
Dealers will fix them and sell them - They have no other option as the factory will not take them back and anything else is not financially viable.

I work in a part of town where just about every trailer full of new cars drives past my window. Seeing as new car sales has dropped by 40% in Spain this year, I asked a friend who works for Alfa what was going on with so many new cars.

He told me that these cars were cars that the factory were producing and that the dealers had to take as part of the agreed quotas. They were then being stored in fields or warehouses at incredible cost to the dealerships. The crisis has come in so fast and so furiously that there has not been enough time to adjust the quotas for the first 2 quarters and dealerships simply do not have the option to return anything back to the factories. It just does not happen.

So basically, a lemon that you reject, will get sold as a nearly new car as there really is no other financially viable option for the dealership.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top