Intermittent red warning J1.2

[Leccy61]

It definitely does work, see the part 3: quest for perfect map thread for example. People are running the diags app via various ways of running windows on their macs. The only hiccup I had was to ensure the USB Ethernet adapter was not active on the Mac, only on the windows instance (as @prj mentions)

Sponsored

 

[4sCT21]

So the Porsche OPC (supplying dealer) are refusing to accept my rejection, stipulating its too late and the issue wasn't there at point of sale.

Given my local OPC specifically asked me if I intended to reject the car, I find the stance they are taking beyond disappointing.

They think they've diagnosed a gateway control module and are awaiting the part (later this month), my position has not changed in that I have lost all faith in the car.

I reported the first warning at circa 350 miles and 50 days of ownership, and the car has been to my local OPC twice for repair (please bear in mind).

190 of those miles i repeat, were not driven by me and were the supplying dealer collecting the car and dropping it off twice to rectify the poor paint.

They are contacting Porsche GB for potential goodwill / help exchanging. Ill await that response.

Ive contacted citizens advice who essentially confirmed what I thought, but suggested the onus was on me to prove its not wear and tear. I think 350 miles and 50 days old is enough proof.

I have to ultimately go through VW finance they advised, so ill contact them when I know more.

 

[prj]

Interesting UK consumer laws. In the EU any defect within the first 1 year of ownership is considered to have been present during the sale and the onus is on the seller to prove otherwise.

 

[4sCT21]

If anyone has experience with UK car finance rejections, help truly appreciated.

I think the stance taken by the supplying dealer is wrong and citizens advice suggest it is aswell.

 

[D00notD00d]

If anyone has experience with UK car finance rejections, help truly appreciated.

I think you're referring to claiming money back from a credit provider for faulty goods - Section 75of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Unfortunately this is applicable only if the cash price of the goods is £30,000 or less.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/data-insight/our-insight/common-myths-about-section-75#:~:text='Section%2075'%20of%20the%20Consumer,rejected%20by%20their%20credit%20provider.

I'll follow up with more thoughts later ...

 

[4sCT21]

Sorry I was referring to consumer rights 2015 new car purchase rejections.

Citizens advice say I can reject, but onus on me to prove car is faulty.

I have to do that through VW finance, but not approached them yet.

Supplying dealer have presented my case to Porsche GB for buy back and good will etc

I'll run with that and see what is offered. Im not holding my breath.

Im happy to have another Porsche, but not EV, it would be Macan S / GTS or cayman GTS.

 

[D00notD00d]

I think the stance taken by the supplying dealer is wrong and citizens advice suggest it is aswell.

Part 1

You've said above that the supplier has refused your rejection claim on the grounds that it was submitted too late and the issue did not exist at the time of sale.
The key questions are (1) when and how did you first report the fault; and (2) when did you submit the rejection request.

In your post ~6 you said the initial occurrence was outside the first 30 days. I picked the car up at new year and it occurred on my first long journey on Feb 18th. I reported the issue to the supplying dealer on that day.

If the fault occurs only on longer journeys and you reported it on 18/2/25, that's the grounds that the problem existed at the point of sale. Later posts indicate that the fault frequency had increased?

I note the fix attempts so far all affect components that were present at the time of sale. On that basis you could argue that the fault was present at the point of sale, but was latent until certain circumstances arose (similar to the J1.1 LG cell manufacturing defects).

If you haven't already, it will be worth documenting a timeline of the fault, recording a summary of each contact you had with the dealer, their actions and their outcomes. You could purchase a service history report from vinanalytics.com - that should show all service jobs and their details. @ct14garage may be able to help by providing you with the same from PCSS.

What happened between 18/2/25, June 25 and 20/11/25?
Below, for my own understanding, i've tried to document what happened forward from 20/11/25.

• Although the problem started 18/2/25, the car first went in for dealer attention in June 25? Could that give the impression that this is a low impact/infrequent fault?
  
  
• On 20/11/25 post ~21 you said that the dealer had diagnosed 2 degraded cells and had referred this to Porsche AG for their support. Did the dealer give you a SoH cert when you bought the car? Do have have/can you get a copy of their PDI/101 report? What was the build date vs. purchase date? Where had the car been in between? Had the SoC been maintained as per the care instructions? I recently looked at a Feb 25 registered car which was built June 24.
  
  
• On 11/12/25 you said you got the back with the dealer claiming that sw updates and cell balancing had fixed the problem?
  
  The car should so its own cell balancing, but it seems they have forced this by a controlled discharge to 1-2%, a bottom balancing idle period; re-charge to 100% then a top balancing idle period. The car should have been delivered to you with all sw versions up to date and the PDI/101 should sign that off.
  The Porsche AG and dealer actions here seem to amount to 'we havent got a Scooby, lets try a sw refresh and then turn it off & on (which tbf, in the absence of any other theory, may have worked).
  
  
• On 16/12/25 you said that fault had returned.
• On 25/12/25 you said you'd rejected the car. Was that the first time you notified a rejection?
• On 4/1/26 post ~39 another UK user reported the same fault code on their car.
• On 7/1/26 post ~48 you said that the dealer had now diagnosed a hardware fault, a Gateway Control Module.
  Why did this idea not come up sooner? What is the confidence level that this will fix the root cause? How many more fishing trips may occur before the problem is solved?
  There was a J1.1 recall for this but i assume j1.2 was built with the appropriate part - https://www.taycanforum.com/forum/t...elivery-my23-24-feb-23-2024.19268/post-296647
  Other users reported that this is a quick replacement.

More tomorrow with thoughts on what do next.
This clashed with your previous post.

 

[4sCT21]

Thank you for your time and help.

I did indeed make a timeline, and took photos as evidence which is now in the hands of the dealer.

The first fault did indeed occurr on day 50 of ownership, at circa 350 miles on the clock, on my first long journey in the car. I had personally only put around 170 of those miles on the car.

I spoke with citizens advice, they agreed that I can continue to see what the dealer / Porsche GB offer, before going to VW finance to reject.

I would argue the onus would not be on me to prove the fault was there from day 1, 350 miles is almost delivery mileage in some cases, so can be assumed to be there from handover.

I only approached them to reject the car last month, after the second failed attempt to repair.

The fault was first reported to the supplying dealer on day 50, then the next failures reported to my local OPC from May onwards, so less than 5 months.


Porsche assist saw the car with 1857 miles on the clock on the 20th May.

It was first looked at by the dealer on June 3rd for diagnostics. No fault found, no historic codes.

I was on long term sick from work during the 1st 6 months of ownership, so not driving the car on long journeys, as soon as I started commuting, the problem popped up regularly.

Like I say, I've seen the fault a minium of 12 times. After the initial visit to Porsche in june, the fault didnt appear again until September, but it started appearing regularly then, as I had returned to work!

The car had been with the dealer since at least May 24, as i have screenshots of the original advert.I purchased it in December 24.

 

[4sCT21]

Just checked my posts on here, first fault on feb 18th at 380 miles(i initially said on here), reported to dealer sales team that late afternoon (service dept closed) and to the service department the next day.

That fault occurred following 87 miles of driving in one go.

The next event was the Porsche assist incident on May 20th at 1857 miles, i immediately booked in with my local dealer. The next event was May 29th whilst driving locally with 1928 miles on the clock.

 

[D00notD00d]

I’ve not yet read your last couple of posts, below is what I produced meanwhile offlline.

After going through the history above and looking at the legislation, I’ve come up with the following. Even if you’ve arrived at this already, my thoughts may provide affirmation. I’m no expert on this stuff but have had to research it a couple of times, so this was a good refresh opportunity ready for my next purchase.

Although the initial 30 day and six month rejection periods (provided by the Consumer Rights Act Sections 19-24) have passed without being exercised by you, beyond six months the underlying rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 2 Section 9 still exist.

The content below in italics could form part of a rebuttal to the dealers refusal to your rejection request, plus your timeline. Suggest you send this to the dealer and cc the Porsche CEO and maybe your finance company asap. Note the supplier is responsible, the sale contract is theirs.
…….

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 2 Section 9 requires that goods are of satisfactory quality (to a standard required by a reasonable person, and as implied by their price and prestige); fit for purpose (safe, durable and free from even minor defects) and which match the sample of others apparently produced successfully [and any sample demonstrated to you prior to sale e.g. If you tried a demonstrator that did not exhibit the defect.

(Notes
- This is what Martin Lewis refers to as SADFART https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/
- With regard to proof that the problem existed at the time of sale: although the supplier has denied this, they have provided no supporting evidence?
- Now you're now in the final right to reject/repair/partial refund stage past, six months, the burden of proof rests with you - to show that the problem existed at the time of delivery.)


The fact that in at least 3 unsuccessful fix attempts, no original components other than possibly software versions have changed since the time of sale, yet the problem remains, indicates that an as yet unknown manufacturing defect existed at the time of sale. This defect was seemingly latent until 18 February 2025, when it was surfaced as a result of particular usage circumstances. Further evidence towards this is that the latest planned fix is apparently to replace a hardware control unit component which was present at the time of sale, and which therefore must have been defective at the time of sale (i.e. not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose). This is irrefutable. Given the multiple unsuccessful diagnosis and fix attempts so far since June 2025, the latest proposed change is possibly speculative and may not resolve the problem root cause.


Given the additional evidence summarised above I am therefore again writing to reject the goods, and require either partial refund or corresponding replacement, detail to be agreed, plus consequential loss, distress and inconvenience compensation.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1, Chapter 2, Sections 9-14 and Sections 19-14 apply and support this position.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

 

[4sCT21]

Thank you for your assistance.

I apologise, im in San Francisco and have been extremely tired, but something you mentioned did raise my attention.

When wishing to

I’ve not yet read your last couple of posts, below is what I produced meanwhile offlline.

After going through the history above and looking at the legislation, I’ve come up with the following. Even if you’ve arrived at this already, my thoughts may provide affirmation. I’m no expert on this stuff but have had to research it a couple of times, so this was a good refresh opportunity ready for my next purchase.

Although the initial 30 day and six month rejection periods (provided by the Consumer Rights Act Sections 19-24) have passed without being exercised by you, beyond six months the underlying rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 2 Section 9 still exist.

The content below italics could form part of a rebuttal to the dealers refusal to your rejection request, plus your timeline. Suggest you send this to the dealer and cc the Porsche CEO and maybe your finance company asap. Note the supplier is responsible, the sale contract is theirs.
…….

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Chapter 2 Section 9 requires that goods are of satisfactory quality (to a standard required by a reasonable person, and as implied by their price and prestige); fit for purpose (safe, durable and free from even minor defects) and which match the sample of others apparently produced successfully [and any sample demonstrated to you prior to sale e.g. If you tried a demonstrator that did not exhibit the defect.

(Notes
- This is what Martin Lewis refers to as SADFART https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/consumer-rights-refunds-exchange/
- With regard to proof that the problem existed at the time of sale: although the supplier has denied this, they have provided no supporting evidence?
- Now you're now in the final right to reject/repair/partial refund stage past, six months, the burden of proof rests with you - to show that the problem existed at the time of delivery.)


The fact that in at least 3 unsuccessful fix attempts, no original components other than possibly software versions have changed since the time of sale, yet the problem remains, indicates that an as yet unknown manufacturing defect existed at the time of sale. This defect was seemingly latent until 18 February 2025, when it was surfaced as a result of particular usage circumstances. Further evidence towards this is that the latest planned fix is apparently to replace a hardware control unit component which was present at the time of sale, and which therefore must have been defective at the time of sale (i.e. not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose). This is irrefutable. Given the multiple unsuccessful diagnosis and fix attempts so far since June 2025, the latest proposed change is possibly speculative and may not resolve the problem root cause.


Given the additional evidence summarised above I am therefore again writing to reject the goods, and require either partial refund or corresponding replacement, detail to be agreed, plus consequential loss, distress and inconvenience compensation.
Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 1, Chapter 2, Sections 9-14 and Sections 19-14 apply and support this position.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

Thank you.

 

[prj]

- Now you're now in the final right to reject/repair/partial refund stage past, six months, the burden of proof rests with you - to show that the problem existed at the time of delivery.)

Sounds very similar to EU consumer law. EU consumer law was recently amended where the 6 months are now 1 year though.
The 6 months are irrelevant here because he reported the problem much earlier than 6 months from the moment of the sale.

The 6 months applies to the first report of the issue, not to the seller dragging their feet fixing it. So just because 6 months have passed now does not change anything in regards to the consumers rights...

I would say you need a lawyer at this point.

 

[4sCT21]

Sounds very similar to EU consumer law. EU consumer law was recently amended where the 6 months are now 1 year though.
The 6 months are irrelevant here because he reported the problem much earlier than 6 months from the moment of the sale.

The 6 months applies to the first report of the issue, not to the seller dragging their feet fixing it. So just because 6 months have passed now does not change anything in regards to the consumers rights...

I would say you need a lawyer at this point.

I agree, but im trying to stay away from lawyers right now.

Im giving the dealer their chance, this appears it won't be a satisfactory outcome. Ill then go to Porsche financial services (VW finance) as I am their customer and they own the car.

Failing that, then ill seek a proper legal solution.

If the car is successfully rejected (which the dealer has requested) the wear and tear discount levied will be significant according to the dealer. £1-2 / per mile and additional charges.

As I reported outside of 30 days, a full refund will not happen regardless. A lawyer would have to argue that case.

 

[D00notD00d]

The 6 months are irrelevant here because he reported the problem much earlier than 6 months from the moment of the sale.

The 6 months applies to the first report of the issue, not to the seller dragging their feet fixing it. So just because 6 months have passed now does not change anything in regards to the consumers rights...

Sorry @prj but you’re wrong.

Under the UK legislation, when car is rejected is more important than when the problem was reported in deciding whether the fault existed at the time of sale.
If rejected within 30 days it is assumed the problem existed at the time of delivery. A full refund is relatively straightforward.
After 6 months only a partial refund rather than full refund is supported.
After 30 days the consumer must prove that the fault existed at the time of sale. I think @4sCT21 has strong evidence towards that.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents

Where a settlement cannot be jointly agreed (the supplying dealer will always want to low ball the consumer/ripple this back to the manufacturer) the legislation encourages Alternative Dispute Reconciliation instead of lawyering up.
In the UK most larger dealers and for new cars Porsche GB sign up to the Motor Ombudsman codes
https://www.themotorombudsman.org/knowledge/what-is-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr/

But lawyering up may give a quicker and better result. You have to balance that against lawyers being smarter and better at making money for themselves than dealers

 

[4sCT21]

Thanks everyone for their feedback and help.

Im seeking guidance where i can.

As above, I think its blatantly obvious the fault was there at point of sale, and its now down to putting that across in the correct manner to the dealer / manufacturer / finance company.

The supplying sales manager is disputing that the fault was there from new, I think this is an absolutely ridiculous stance, but he's obviously trying to limit the financial responsibility of the dealership.

370 miles and 50 days is new, and I stress, id driven a max of around 200 of those miles. This is not wear and tear.

If they have now diagnosed a faulty part causing the warning, that was faulty at sale, ergo the car was faulty and not fit for purpose.

Sponsored