29.08.2025 15:57
A citizen in Gaziantep experienced an issue with the electrical system of a luxury SUV that he purchased new from a dealership, and the vehicle remained in service for 8 months. The request for a replacement made by the vehicle owner was rejected by both the dealership and the brand on the grounds that the owner was at fault. The vehicle owner's lawyer stated, "The attitude of a brand known worldwide for its durability and reliability is unacceptable to consumers."
```html
A citizen living in Gaziantep purchased a brand new luxury SUV from a dealer in the city about 2 years ago for 1 million 830 thousand lira at that time.
ELECTRICAL COMPONENT FAILURE, 8 MONTHS WITHOUT SERVICE
The luxury SUV, which was used for a short time, suddenly shut down after starting to give errors. The citizen who took the guaranteed vehicle to the dealer where he bought it was told that there was a problem with the vehicle's electrical components and that it needed to go to service. Accepting this request, the citizen experienced significant hardship after the service period exceeded 8 months.
EXCHANGE REQUEST DENIED
The vehicle owner's request for an exchange due to the defect after the 8-month service period was rejected by both the dealer and the brand. After experiencing this hardship, the vehicle owner filed a legal complaint against the brand and the dealer.
"WE WILL PURSUE ALL LEGAL REMEDIES"
Lawyer Suat Gençal, speaking on behalf of the aggrieved vehicle owner, explained the process and stated that they would pursue all legal remedies. Lawyer Suat Gençal said, "My client purchased an electric vehicle from a brand known worldwide for its durability and reliability about 15-16 months ago. Shortly after purchasing the vehicle, a malfunction occurred without any fault of my client, and the vehicle completely locked itself. Following this, the vehicle was delivered to service. It was stated that the vehicle's maintenance and repair would be done, and it would be delivered in a very short time."
"THEY REFUSED TO DELIVER THE VEHICLE FOR 8-9 MONTHS"
Emphasizing that the service period for the vehicle took 8 months, lawyer Gençal stated, "The service hesitated to deliver the vehicle for approximately 8-9 months. However, after the repair, our client stated that they did not want to receive the vehicle in this condition and requested it to be replaced with a new one. The service had previously promised that they would positively approach this request, but shortly after, they said that the vehicle would not be replaced with a new one."
"THE ATTITUDE OF A BRAND KNOWN FOR ITS DURABILITY WORLDWIDE IS UNACCEPTABLE"
Lawyer Gençal also stated that the vehicle should be replaced with a new one due to the very long service period, but the brand did not accept this request. "After approximately 8-9 months of service, it is legally required that this vehicle be replaced with a new one that is equivalent. The attitude of a brand known worldwide for its durability and reliability is unacceptable to consumers. Such a long service period is unacceptable for any product; it contradicts the ordinary course of life. We have pursued all legal avenues regarding this matter and are awaiting the results. The attitude of a well-known Swedish brand has seriously harmed my client and his family. We have pursued all legal remedies, and we will await the results," he stated.
```