Just pay it. You signed the courtesy car agreement. There is no argument you can use.
It's amazing people on here suggest doing anything different.
It's a courtesy car that you agreed to the terms and conditions. You can't demand they take it to another garage.
You sign a bit of paper without reading it and now complain. Tough shit i'm afraid.
The car wasn't loaned as a courtesy (as with servicing), the car was loaned due to an obligation to the OP by the dealer, that's the point you are missing.
The car wasn't loaned as a courtesy (as with servicing), the car was loaned due to an obligation to the OP by the dealer, that's the point you are missing.
The point is the op would have signed a loan car agreement , the excess pointed out and a waiver could be paid if required...
Time to divvy up for the op I'm afraid, it's just one of them
The car wasn't loaned as a courtesy (as with servicing), the car was loaned due to an obligation to the OP by the dealer, that's the point you are missing.
People are missing your 'point' because attempting to make a distinction between a car provided whilst a car is being serviced and when a warranty repair is undertaken Is a point you're conjuring up out of thin air. The dealer is not obliged to provide a loan car in either circumstance, and when they do it will generally be on the same terms.
Attempting to make a distinction between a car provided whilst a car is being serviced and when a warranty repair is undertaken Is point you are conjuring up out of thin air. The dealer is not obliged to provide a loan car in either circumstance, and when they do it will generally be on the same terms.
Because you are unable to understand the point, doesn't mean it's not valid.
The car the OP paid good money for failed, so of course the OP has a right to expect a replacement during a repair.
A service is a different issue.
The OP has a right to expect the terms and conditions to be reasonable, even though he signed them. The value of a contract is based on how well it will hold up in a court of law.
You seem to set yourself up as something of an expert on these issues, when you clearly have little understanding of such matters.
It’s up to the OP whether to roll over and accept the way s/he has been treated, or to make a stand, I really can’t be bothered to argue with people like you who don’t really know what you are talking about.
Because you are unable to understand the point, doesn't mean it's not valid..
Don't be so patronising, it's a simplistic point that a 10 year old could understand but it carries absolutely no weight in law. The dealer has declined to make a gesture, that may not be the best business decision, but it's their decision to make.
Don't be so patronising, it's a simplistic point that a 10 year old could understand but it carries absolutely no weight in law. The dealer has declined to make a gesture, that may not be the best business decision, but it's their decision to make.
This is an advice board, you disagree with the advice I have given, simple as that. It's up to the OP as to the action they take.
As I stated earlier, there are a number of grey areas, so only a fool would be sure.
You clearly do not have a good understanding of the relevant law, and see the matter as black and white - which is an observation that you may find patronising, but not my problem.
I am aware that you regularly like to argue for the sake of it, and I don't intend to oblige you further in that regard.
It dosent matter what the loan cars for, warranty or servicing etc
The fact is the loan car has been damaged in the ops care, he or she has to pay as if it was their own car
It surprises me that being a main dealer they haven't waived it, customer retention is more important than an excess payment.. But where do they draw the line???
Comments
The car wasn't loaned as a courtesy (as with servicing), the car was loaned due to an obligation to the OP by the dealer, that's the point you are missing.
The point is the op would have signed a loan car agreement , the excess pointed out and a waiver could be paid if required...
Time to divvy up for the op I'm afraid, it's just one of them
Because you are unable to understand the point, doesn't mean it's not valid.
The car the OP paid good money for failed, so of course the OP has a right to expect a replacement during a repair.
A service is a different issue.
The OP has a right to expect the terms and conditions to be reasonable, even though he signed them. The value of a contract is based on how well it will hold up in a court of law.
You seem to set yourself up as something of an expert on these issues, when you clearly have little understanding of such matters.
It’s up to the OP whether to roll over and accept the way s/he has been treated, or to make a stand, I really can’t be bothered to argue with people like you who don’t really know what you are talking about.
This is an advice board, you disagree with the advice I have given, simple as that. It's up to the OP as to the action they take.
As I stated earlier, there are a number of grey areas, so only a fool would be sure.
You clearly do not have a good understanding of the relevant law, and see the matter as black and white - which is an observation that you may find patronising, but not my problem.
I am aware that you regularly like to argue for the sake of it, and I don't intend to oblige you further in that regard.
The fact is the loan car has been damaged in the ops care, he or she has to pay as if it was their own car
It surprises me that being a main dealer they haven't waived it, customer retention is more important than an excess payment.. But where do they draw the line???