Mal113
06-11-2008, 09:53 AM
I have had Honda's since 1980 and have been very pleased with the Accord, I have resently purchased a EX-demo Honda CRV EX model with safety pack body kit and 19 inch wheels and now I wish I had never heard the word Honda. Read the letter below sent to the Dealer to ask that he takes back the vehicle and refunds the purchase price.
This is written without prejudice.
Reference Honda CRV .
Defects with this vehicle: -
1. AFS lighting system. This has been a problem since two hours after driving the vehicle away from xxx, further, it is a know problem and would have been known to xxx. It has been confirmed that Honda notified dealer of the problem. Therefore, the selling of goods, with a known problem, without notice to the purchaser contravenes “ The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)”. The fact that there is no fix for this problem confirmed by both xxx and another Honda dealer and Honda themselves allows in Law to reject the car for a full refund.
2. The CMBS System is unreliable and has indicated on a number of occasion that I should brake when clearly there is nothing in front of the vehicle, this happened on all occasion in a different location and therefore, you cannot argue that despite seeing nothing there must in fact be an object as I have passed the same location numerous times since without any indication. When the CMBS system indicates brake you are duty bound to brake for fear that the system may well apply the brakes fully, which could lead to a dangerous situation. The CMBS system is now turned off (this has been discussed with xxx) as I can no long drive with a system that is totally unreliable and in my opinion dangerous to myself and other road users.
There are too many exceptions when this system can give the wrong display, however, if you were to read the sales information in the CR-V booklet the limitation are not mentioned, it is only when you sit down with the Owners Manual are you aware of the numerous limitations to the system. This is therefore, misleading sales information as the limitations are not mentioned nor pointed out at he time of sales.
When I purchased this vehicle I did so with the optional safety package believing this offered the passengers, myself and other road users some security from accident. I now find that 50% of the system is either defective without a fix or so unpredictable as to be hazard to uses. Therefore the extra money paid for this system was and is a complete waste of time.
3. The rear door is out of alignment, this may be able to be fixed but I do not purchase a vehicle to then need repairs to an integral part of the bodywork The misalignment was noted and inspected by a Honda dealer in the South West, he confirmed the misalignment as compared to other CR-V’s on his premises. He did not know why it should have be misalignment as all the body panels are in alignment, further he had no time to investigate further at that time.
.
4. Two tyres where damaged and reported as soon as I arrived in Lancaster. I was lucky that the vehicle was parked in Lancaster with the nails in the 1or 2 o’clock position and so visible. Having found the nails I then had a look at all the tyres and found the sidewall damage in the front nearside tyre. The vehicle was taken to Kwik-fit Lancaster to have the nails removed and the sidewall inspected. They could not be sure if the nails had entered the steel banding as the nails had entered on an angle, however, what was clear is that because of the angle of entry the tyre could not be repaired if necessary. As for the sidewall nothing could be done, their advice was to change the tyre. If for one minute, I thought I had been anywhere where this damaged could have occurred I would not be bringing this to xxx attention, I do no need to ask Chatham’s to replace two tyres should I be the cause. However, as pointed out to Chatham’s I would not have purchased the vehicle should I have seen the problem before taking delivery without new tyres fitted, no new tyres would have resulted in no sale.
Conclusion.
As stated to xxx in previous e-mails I am totally disappointed with this vehicle. I find I have purchase a safety system that does not work or has so many limitations that renders it unusable and dangerous. None of which were pointed out at sale, which is misleading and against the “ The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)” I think this is a 1500GBP addition that cannot be relied upon.
Then we have the door, if I where to allow repair who is going to pick up the costs? It may or may not be a warranty issue as the vehicle has been driven by a number of personnel so we cannot be sure what has happened.
Lastly, the tyres, in essence this is the easiest to revolve as it only needs two new tyres, has not other damage as been done.
Due to the above defects I totally reject this vehicle and ask that you return the full purchase price. The vehicle will now be removed from the road and will not be driven until returned to Chatham’s.
I await your reply with 14 days of receipt of this letter. You may if you wish reply to this e-mail.
Yours Sincerely.
J.M Smith
Sent: -
By e-mail
Registered post. 6th June 2008.
This is written without prejudice.
Reference Honda CRV .
Defects with this vehicle: -
1. AFS lighting system. This has been a problem since two hours after driving the vehicle away from xxx, further, it is a know problem and would have been known to xxx. It has been confirmed that Honda notified dealer of the problem. Therefore, the selling of goods, with a known problem, without notice to the purchaser contravenes “ The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)”. The fact that there is no fix for this problem confirmed by both xxx and another Honda dealer and Honda themselves allows in Law to reject the car for a full refund.
2. The CMBS System is unreliable and has indicated on a number of occasion that I should brake when clearly there is nothing in front of the vehicle, this happened on all occasion in a different location and therefore, you cannot argue that despite seeing nothing there must in fact be an object as I have passed the same location numerous times since without any indication. When the CMBS system indicates brake you are duty bound to brake for fear that the system may well apply the brakes fully, which could lead to a dangerous situation. The CMBS system is now turned off (this has been discussed with xxx) as I can no long drive with a system that is totally unreliable and in my opinion dangerous to myself and other road users.
There are too many exceptions when this system can give the wrong display, however, if you were to read the sales information in the CR-V booklet the limitation are not mentioned, it is only when you sit down with the Owners Manual are you aware of the numerous limitations to the system. This is therefore, misleading sales information as the limitations are not mentioned nor pointed out at he time of sales.
When I purchased this vehicle I did so with the optional safety package believing this offered the passengers, myself and other road users some security from accident. I now find that 50% of the system is either defective without a fix or so unpredictable as to be hazard to uses. Therefore the extra money paid for this system was and is a complete waste of time.
3. The rear door is out of alignment, this may be able to be fixed but I do not purchase a vehicle to then need repairs to an integral part of the bodywork The misalignment was noted and inspected by a Honda dealer in the South West, he confirmed the misalignment as compared to other CR-V’s on his premises. He did not know why it should have be misalignment as all the body panels are in alignment, further he had no time to investigate further at that time.
.
4. Two tyres where damaged and reported as soon as I arrived in Lancaster. I was lucky that the vehicle was parked in Lancaster with the nails in the 1or 2 o’clock position and so visible. Having found the nails I then had a look at all the tyres and found the sidewall damage in the front nearside tyre. The vehicle was taken to Kwik-fit Lancaster to have the nails removed and the sidewall inspected. They could not be sure if the nails had entered the steel banding as the nails had entered on an angle, however, what was clear is that because of the angle of entry the tyre could not be repaired if necessary. As for the sidewall nothing could be done, their advice was to change the tyre. If for one minute, I thought I had been anywhere where this damaged could have occurred I would not be bringing this to xxx attention, I do no need to ask Chatham’s to replace two tyres should I be the cause. However, as pointed out to Chatham’s I would not have purchased the vehicle should I have seen the problem before taking delivery without new tyres fitted, no new tyres would have resulted in no sale.
Conclusion.
As stated to xxx in previous e-mails I am totally disappointed with this vehicle. I find I have purchase a safety system that does not work or has so many limitations that renders it unusable and dangerous. None of which were pointed out at sale, which is misleading and against the “ The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)” I think this is a 1500GBP addition that cannot be relied upon.
Then we have the door, if I where to allow repair who is going to pick up the costs? It may or may not be a warranty issue as the vehicle has been driven by a number of personnel so we cannot be sure what has happened.
Lastly, the tyres, in essence this is the easiest to revolve as it only needs two new tyres, has not other damage as been done.
Due to the above defects I totally reject this vehicle and ask that you return the full purchase price. The vehicle will now be removed from the road and will not be driven until returned to Chatham’s.
I await your reply with 14 days of receipt of this letter. You may if you wish reply to this e-mail.
Yours Sincerely.
J.M Smith
Sent: -
By e-mail
Registered post. 6th June 2008.