Just an inconsequential accessory?

[Dustydog]

And now for a very dark sad story. If you find it inappropriate please report to the Mods. It is absolutely true and may refocus the whys and wherefores of VAG actions on the software.
I will leave his name and company out for now. He spent the last 25 years fitting towbars , cameras etc to new and used VAG vehicles. He had an understanding with most of the main VAG dealers in the South West Cornwall to Oxfordshire. When VAG blocked the codes he found it impossible to set up the new vehicles correctly. Complaints followed although not his fault.
Most of his tools were purpose made for carefully removing trim etc.
The end result was his work lessened and in the end he ended his life in his garage CO poisoning.
Collateral damage or maybe VAG fault indirectly? His last letter blamed you know who🥲

 

[ProfJohnL]

I think this thread demonstrates the power of CRA, when even relatively small points in an order can catch parties out, in the case the dealer.
By ensuring the detail about the towbar requirement was clearly stated on the agreed order makes it part of the contractual requirements, and if its not supplied, the dealer is in breach of contract. It's as simple as that.

The dealers ordering taking prosess should contain checks and balances to prevent impossible combinations of specification being entered which sould have avoided this episode entirely, but it didn't so the dealer was inbreach of their legal obligation on that point.

As the option for a towbar was possible and the customer selected it, bearing in mind Audi are considered a premium brand and charge premium prices for such things, it would be difficult to dismiss the customers choice as not important and thus it is a contractually important part of contract, not an insignifficnt element that can casually be overlooked.

The ommision of the towbar was brought to the attention of the dealer at the handover. The customer could have rejected the car at that point, but there was a discussion which both customer and dealer agreed to allow a waiver for a delayed completion. This is reasonable behavior and acceptable in dispute resolution but generous on the part of the customer. That generosity wears thin as time scales increase, and eventually goes beyond reasonable, when the customers plans are forced to change because of the breach of contract by the dealer.

Remember the dealer was aware of their breach of contract and that notification stops the time limit clocks, so they have every reason to resolve the matter quickly but they didn't and actively tried to evade their continuing liability to the customer by telling him he could not reject the car. This was patently untrue and another breach of their legal obligations under UK consumer law, where Dealers are legally expected to provide honest information.

It is clear that someone on the dealership did understand their true liability in these matters, but even they failed to act completely honourable as the did not keep the customer informed of when they accepted liability or provide a reasonable time table to a compliant car replacement..

There's a lot to pick out from the narative in the thread, but at the very least all car sales people at that dealership should be retrained in both the meaning and law of the Consumer Rights Act.

Meanwhile I hope your new car with tow hitch takes you where your dreams lie....And we'll done for standing up for you legal rights.