Audi frequently “jumped” guns while refueling for two years and has not been resolved. 4S store refuses to return and exchange: The warranty can be extended

Recently, Mr. Chen, a car owner in Suzhou, complained to the Pengpai public interaction platform "Service" (https://tousu.thepaper.cn) that the Audi A6 plug-in hybrid vehicle he purchased for more than 400,000 yuan has been in trouble since the car was picked up, resulting in frequent "gun jumping" due to abnormal gas pressure, and has undergone 9 maintenance times within two years and has not been resolved. Mr. Chen questioned the vehicle's design defects and requested a return but was rejected. Suzhou Zhongdi Audi 4S store responded that Mr. Chen’s vehicle was purchased in the name of the company and the return and exchange terms of the “Three Guarantee Law” are not subject to, and only two “official repairs” have been carried out, and the rest of the records entering the store were “problem feedback”. The staff of the 4S store said that the "gun jump" problem does not affect driving safety, and proposed compensation plans such as extending the warranty. But Mr. Chen rejected the plan and no agreement has been reached yet.Vehicle repair records compiled by Mr. Chen. Photo provided by the interviewee. The new car has repeatedly had a "gun jump" fault. The maintenance failed for two years. Mr. Chen introduced that on February 28, 2023, he bought an Audi A6 plug-in hybrid car at the Zhongdi Audi 4S store in Suzhou. After picking up the car, the oil gun frequently tripped due to abnormal gas pressure in the fuel tank, and the gas gun could not be filled normally. According to the repair ticket provided by Mr. Chen, he reported the above-mentioned issues on March 11, 2023 and sent the vehicle to the 4S store for maintenance. After inspection, the 4S store was determined that "the fuel tank has a ventilation system, and the fuel vapor will cause the gun to jump." "Every time I refuel, I am worried. The gas station doesn't even dare to fill me up, worried about the risk of combustion or explosion caused by excessive gas pressure in the fuel tank." Mr. Chen said that since he bought a model of gasoline-electric hybrid, he used the motor most of the time, but occasionally when he needed to refuel, there would still be a problem of jumping the gun. To this end, he has visited the 4S store many times in the past two years to repair this issue. The work order provided by Mr. Chen shows that from March 2023 to March 2025, the 4S store reported repairs 11 times due to the "gun jump" problem, and nine maintenances were carried out, but the problem of refueling the fuel tank and jumping has never been solved. Mr. Chen believes that according to Article 22 of the "Regulations on Repair, Replacement and Return of Home Car Products", if the same quality problem is repaired more than 4 times or has been repaired twice in total, consumers may request a return and exchange vehicle. "But the 4S store rejected my request to return the vehicle on the grounds that the car was purchased in the name of the company and is not applicable to the return of the vehicle." Mr. Chen said that although his car was purchased in the name of the company, it was actually used less frequently. According to Article 24 of the "Consumer Rights Protection Law" and Article 15 of the "Interim Measures for Handling Complaints and Reports in Market Supervision and Administration", consumer rights should still be enjoyed. In addition, the fault occurs for the first time during the warranty period of the new car (the second week of picking up the car). "Even if the warranty period has passed, the car company should be responsible for the faults that occur during the warranty period." Mr. Chen questioned the issue of passive delay in the 4S store's "repair definition" and hopes to return and exchange vehicles in accordance with relevant regulations as soon as possible.Some maintenance work order records provided by Mr. Chen. The interviewee responded: There were only two "official repairs" and the company's car purchase is not applicable. After receiving a complaint from Mr. Chen, The Paper contacted Suzhou Zhongdi Audi 4S store. The relevant person in charge said that Mr. Chen's actual repair records were only twice: the fuel tank was replaced in 2024, the exhaust valve was replaced in March 2025, and the other records entering the store were "problem feedback" and were not included in the maintenance scope. The person in charge said that Mr. Chen’s vehicle was purchased in the name of the company. According to the “Three Guarantee Law” of the automobile, “special vehicles do not enjoy the rights of return and exchange, and only provide repair services.” Regarding the safety hazards questioned by Mr. Chen, the 4S store explained that the "jumping gun" problem only affects the refueling experience and does not affect driving safety. At present, the 4S store has proposed compensation plans such as extending the warranty, giving up maintenance, and applying for manufacturer expert testing, but they were all rejected by consumers. "The owner has recently refused vehicle testing, and we cannot confirm whether the fault still exists." In response, Mr. Chen said that he insisted on returning and exchanging the faulty vehicle for Audi. If maintenance continues, it is necessary to ensure that it is repaired at one time. "They cannot continue to repair it endlessly, which will affect the normal use of our vehicle." At present, the two parties have not reached an agreement on the compensation plan. Lawyer: Consumers have the right to require a return and exchange vehicle from the perspective of contract performance. In this regard, Zhao Liangshan, senior partner of Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm and a well-known public welfare lawyer, believes that judging from Mr. Chen's feedback and maintenance records, the vehicle has indeed jumped from the gun many times, which is a vehicle failure, that is, the vehicle has quality problems. According to Article 22 of the "Regulations on Repair, Replacement and Return of Home Automobile Products", if the same quality problem is repaired more than 4 times in total or has not been solved for two safety performance failures, consumers may request a return and exchange vehicle. The 4S store has doubts about the number of repairs, saying that the actual repair records were only two times, and the remaining records of entering the store were not included in the repair category. To determine whether these store entry records are repairs, the key is to determine whether the 4S store has conducted substantial repair operations for vehicle problems every time they enter the store, such as replacing parts, performing system debugging, etc. If the 4S store is just a simple inspection and there is no problem with the vehicle, it is a hypothetical problem that Mr. Chen will not be included in the maintenance record at that time; but if the corresponding maintenance operation is carried out, even if the problem is not solved, it should be included in the number of repairs. In addition, the 4S store rejected the return request on the grounds that "the car company is purchased in the name of the car company and the family car return regulations are not applicable." Therefore, the focus of the controversy in this incident is consumer identity identification. Zhao Liangshan said that the "three guarantees" regulations issued by the former State Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine clearly stated the "three guarantees for automobiles" policy, which is aimed at passenger cars purchased and used by consumers for their daily consumption needs. Cars purchased by enterprises, institutions and government agencies for official production are not included in the scope of the three guarantees for cars. However, in real life, many bosses buy cars in the name of their own company in order to offset taxes, but in fact they are using them themselves and do not use them for office use by the unit. Cars like this are non-operating vehicles themselves and are not truly "company vehicles". This should not be simply viewed as if the vehicle was bought in the name of the company, and the three guarantees method is not applicable. Zhao Liangshan said that even if it is impossible to confirm the consumer identity of Mr. Chen using the vehicle, that is, the vehicle is recognized as a company vehicle, the party can still terminate the contract if one party delays performance of the debt or has other breach of contract, resulting in the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract. Mr. Chen has the right to request a return and exchange car from the perspective of contract performance. Pengpai News reporter Chen Leizhu intern Su Cancan (this article comes from Pengpai News. For more original information, please download the "Pengpai News" APP)