To clarify.gazb84 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:12 pmI don’t get the hang up with hard earned cash either. You can either afford £40k in a lump sum or you spend £500+ per month of your still hard earned cash either way. It doesn’t give you any more reason to be aggrieved disproportionately more based on how the car is funded. You either have a good or bad experience based on the car itself, the financial aspect is irrelevant and not related to the faults experienced.DiscoDriver wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 11:10 am@badgerface
1. Not that it makes any difference, hard earned cash.
2. I had the AEB not available warning but that was condensation on the camera lens due to the cold mornings. Windscreen blower on full cleared that (and the windows and windscreen). I had a low fuel alert too but I fuelled up and that went. Oh, and a tyre pressure warning, but I pumped the tyre up.
I had way more issues with our Nissan and the dealership. My mate is having horrendous issues with his BMW 5 series and the EGR valve debacle.
If it's NOT a lump of your aforementioned hard-earned, and is either a company vehicle, or PCP/Contract Hire/Leased, then the issue is less likely to bother you, because not only is the vehicle NOT yours, it never will be and you will have an exit plan in 3 years. Some of us laid out large amounts of money in the false hope that we would be long-term owners; our fault(s), granted, for believing the lie pedalled by the sales and marketing teams at the time, however try and look at it that our >£40k could (and surely would) have been better invested elsewhere, either to make more money, or reduce ownership worry by buying something without the design issue in the first place.
Hypothetically, and purely as an analagy of sorts, if the DSS or local council housed you in a dump, which had a long-term damp/mould problem and vile neighbours, you would be less inclined to keep daily/weekly/monthly pressure on them and your landlord as a) you weren't paying/contributing (much) for it in the first place, and b) you knew that you would be moved to something better after a short period of time, with no impact on your hard-earned savings whatsoever. Therefore, like most social housing recipients kept by the taxpayer, you wouldn't feel as passionate about the issue as you would had you bought the building outright with a large lump sum of your hard-earned, on the pretext of a lie by the estate agent. Does that make sense?