ilogikal1

Should you ever decide to sell up, let me know first please!

Yeah, but you’re still missing the point. However this should not come as a surprise. You may be willing to accept the cost of new tyres, no one else is in my experience. And if you would honestly go the warranty company for tyres then you really are delusional.

There are literally countless faults that might not get picked up on before purchasing a vehicle, the more vigilant you are pre-sale the less likely that is to happen, but even then you can't possibly inspect every single inch of a car for potential faults. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that in your little world, everyone buying a second hand car does a nut and bolt rebuild. I can't see that somehow. Although maybe I just need to zoom in because it's still on the horizon. You want a specific example? Okay, seeing as you seem to be struggling with the basic premise; Davey goes down to Junction 17, sees a car with some pretty tyre side walls and can't throw his money at the salesman quickly enough. Although Davey does take the time to check that the car comes with a valid MOT first. The deal is done, Davey gets in his "new" car and drives off. The next day, Davey discovers that the inside edge of the tyres are bald. Are you going to the warranty company or retailer in this scenario?!?! Not everyone gets a thorough check of car before they buy (see certain Cayman buyers on here, for example), some don't even check a car at all before buying (see Tesla owners, for example), some believe they know enough about cars not to spend out for the inspection, others just don't care because they are protected by the CRA 2015 anyway. Others do, they find faults and it is still the responsibility of the retailer to resolve those faults or lose a sale. People like J17 are reliant on there being more of those who don't than do. And that's exactly how life actually is, which is exactly how they're still in business. Also you don't mean devolved and I doubt this conversation would have been any easier in person. However, as I said previously, I know you don't mean pre-existing faults, which is entirely why you are missing the point. If a fault develops after the point of sale, then it is absolutely not the responsibility of the retailer; but that is exactly what no one other than you was ever talking about. The point, which is so harmlessly flying by overhead, is that when J17 are still responsible, they refuse to accept that responsibility and go out of their way to deny it, thus are terrible for customer service and should be avoided.

Not if you break down on the way home from bying the car and it's a pre-existing condition from when the car was sold. That is still the seller's responsibility to resolve. Note resolve, not fix; different things! It's a condition of retail as a whole, whether it be cars or any other product. It's called the Consumer Rights Act 2015; the product must be fit for purpose. If it's several days/weeks/months later you might have difficulty demonstrating that it was a pre-existing issue at the point of sale at which point it becomes more difficult to return the product. It's not an indefinite thing and, yes, evenutally you might go directly to the warranty company (depending on the circumstances). It's not about going "above and beyond", you're talking about something completely different, you're talking about fixing the root cause not simply resolving the ultimate issue. It's about the simple fact that the retailer is responsible for selling a product that is fit for purpose, or resolving the issue if it isn't. There is no obgligation for anyone to fix anything, the retailer could simply decide to refund you and walk away from the deal entirely; that has got absolutely nothing to do with the warranty company.

Providing they are still liable for the problem (eg it’s not 6 years later and you’ve changed the alternator a dozen times already), it’s simple; resolve the problem. Yet again, HOW they do that is on them, it’s their responsibility to resolve the problem at their expense. I don’t care if the salesman sends his wife and kids down with a handful of spanner’s to personally replace the alternator or if the car is transported to their preferred mechanic, the point is THEY have to arrange for that to happen and to burden that cost. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp, it’s really very simple.

Not if you're still pissing away £30k+ in either 5 or 2.5 years, especially compared to losing £20k in 5 years for a car that was only £30k to begin with. In fact, that's actually pretty bad.

If you buy anything that's broken, what's your first port of call? The retailer. As said, how they resolve it is up to them, but it doesn't absolve them of any responsibility to ensure that it is resolved. Car retailers are no different to any other retailer.

What have you done with the front number plate?

Did you try @ZMANALEX ?

It’s the responsibility of the retailer to resolve any issues. Whether they farm the actual work and/or cost onto someone else is up to them but it’s still their responsibility. The consistent claims of poor customer service demonstrate that have no intention of upholding that responsibility, and that is the issue.

Oh well then, 50% and 70% are basically the same number when north of £50k... How you consistently completely miss the point would actually be quite impressive if it weren't so concerning. However, seeing as you mentioned it; I could buy a Z for the £30k you'd lose on your Tesla over 5 years and throw it away having lost the exact same amount. I coul actually even sell it and end up having lost less money on Z than you would have on your Tesla. Residuals don't mean much at all. But hey, thanks for playing.

A £30k* Tesla, you'll be referring to the Model S 85 then. The same Model S that is £77,700 when new (with no options), so if they're £30k now that means they're holding 40% of their value. A bit different from the 70% you claimed earlier. Of course being a Tesla, that can easily go up to £107,440 with options, but then I guess those ones will still be worth £75k used these days, right. Oh, and not that 0-60 means anything at all, but it's actually 3.7 seconds for the "cheap" one. *And let's again overlook that is still the cost of the Z when it was new, so big savings to be had over a used Z, obviously. I now see the appeal of doing donuts. All this going round in circles sure is fun.

And £40 to buy, that also folds up into a pocket sized cube when not using it. Apparently a Tesla can do that whilst also not losing you, or costing you, any money at all. Or something.

Let’s just ignore that more often than not with Teslas, that 30% loss would, as near as makes no difference, pay for the Z when it was new...

No, no sense at all.

Try @ZMANALEX

I thought it was ridiculous enough when I assumed it meant tread pattern, but choosing a tyre based on the looks of the side wall?!?

I would recommend not covering it at all, personally.

It’ll need to come in below the BMW for Toyota, so I’m expecting “underpowered” RWD with skinny wheels to provide the entertainment ethos to run through still, tbh.

So in about 10 years you might be breaking even... Can someone get Mrs Lancaster to check with the kitchen? [/Groundhog Day reference]

Better still, ignore all the costs of running a second car and it practically pays you! Not sure running a second car is a practical or reasonable solution to a “I don’t want to pay this much not use my Z as I want” thread, but hey ho. A much more sensible suggestion is to change jobs and move house so you have those clear roads all the time. Initial outlay aside it’s the perfect solution...

Nothing to see here, move along. Move along.

Tinted bubs in tinted lenses aren't very bright. Who'd have thought that?!?

I’m pretty sure Dan’s on commission from Michelin actually, so might stand to gain something...

No part of that makes sense. Especially the part about Dan not being wrong...)