Maybe so, though here in Canada - as far as I can tell - a rear camera is mandatory safety equipment on all new cars as of 2018 or so. If the car was considered "drivable", I'd have to object, as to be drivable IMHO it needs to be lawful to drive it on public roadways. There's also the question of whether it's consistent with Volvo's safety vision to push customers to drive cars with important safety and convenience features down due to a manufacturing defect.
I did offer the dealership the opportunity to supply me with a statement of some sort, vouching that the vehicle was lawful to drive on Canadian roadways, or else to assume liability for personal injury and property damage. They didn't take me up on that one for some reason.

There's also the question of how many faults this car had to begin with. It's hard to believe that all these problems would start simultaneously due to multiple problems occurring at the same time.

Anyways, I'll give Volvo Corporate a few days to get back to me on this one, but otherwise I'm gearing up to sue the dealership as my lessor. Here in Quebec there's a "fit for purpose" clause in the consumer protection act that seems to have some teeth, and there's a small claims court that seems fairly consumer friendly. Best thing is that it allows no lawyers, so the dealership would have to send an officer or a staff member to court.
This isn't so much about the money, it's about the **** stonewalling I've had from the dealership and Volvo Customer "Care" about the possibility, the process and the timeline to discuss compensation. Volvo Customer "Care" is incidentally a very deliberately constructed "weak emissary", which seems to exist solely to offer no opinion or information on broken cars.

 

Siggi, since it was a safety issue, I can see your point about getting a free loaner. Regardless if it was a safety issue or not, it would have been a good gesture for Volvo to have offered the loaner, considering all of the issues you had with your car ... and the fact that they had already approved expensive repairs. Keep us posted.

 

Here is a public Facebook post about this ordeal: . Please share if you feel car manufacturers and/or dealerships owe their customers at least the courtesy of a reply.

Like I said, I'm not too sore that the car had a problem. I sort of anticipated that there'd be teething problems. What I didn't bank on was Volvo being a total stonewall about lease relief or other compensation for 130(!!!) days of downtime due to a manufacturing defect.

 

Siggi, I believe you live in Canada. I live in the USA. While many states in the USA have "lemon car" laws to protect the consumer, I'm not sure if Canada has a similar mechanism. The following URL presents arbitration rights in Canada. It's from 2018, but may still be in place. Perhaps it might be of some use in your case.

https://www.wheels.ca/news/canadas-h...t-know-existed

 

I don't believe Canada has any lemon laws, but I'm not looking for a buyback. I just want Volvo to pick up reasonable costs that I've incurred due to loss of use of the car I'm paying lease on. I'd probably also ask for warranty extension, as mind-blowingly the warranty doesn't automatically extend by the time a car suffered from a manufacturing defect.

Here in Quebec there are some provisions in the consumer protection act that probably have enough bit to press the issue. I'm hoping Volvo doesn't let it come to that - I just don't understand how they think this stonewalling is good or effective customer relations .

 

The link I provided talks about an arbitration process in Canada. Based on everything you've said, to date, it doesn't look like you've gotten what you feel is justice from Volvo. If it were me, I'd go the arbitration route, if that's an avenue available to you in Canada.

 

To wrap up this saga now the lease is finished (and oh boy was I happy to return this car).
While we had this car, it needed umpteen service visits and had a bunch of parts replaced. This was all under warranty, but OMG, I've never driven a car that needed as much servicing - and I've driven some wrecks in my time.
The car got:

• A new main body harness - as detailed above.
• A new rear camera.
• New top shock bearings - after waiting on parts for some 8 or 9 months.
• A new EFAD.
• A new head unit.
• A new passenger side mirror control unit.
• New back hatch struts.
• A new back hatch latch.

It also needed miscellaneous other parts and repairs, mostly I think due to things that broke during major repairs. The AC needed a new bracket, the washer plumbing broke and so on. Also note that each repair typically required at least 2 visits, the first for diagnosis and the second and often a couple more for further diagnosis and then repair (once parts were on hand).
All in all, this car waited on parts for warranty repairs for no less than 10 months, and probably more than a year. That's a quarter of the lease waiting on parts!!!

I did in the end get some satisfaction from Volvo regarding the initial problem, but only after I sued them in small claims.

I recently learned that as of October 2023 there is a lemon law on the books in Quebec. I don't know how effective it would have been in my initial case, however, as it seems the manufacturer/dealership gets a free pass if parts are not available.

 

Glad you are finally out of your lease. Good luck with your new car purchase, which my guess will probably not be a Volvo. Volvo's new CEO has promised that Volvo will do a better job with new model and revised model releases. As a first time Volvo owner (factory ordered 2020 V90 Inscription T6), I was well aware of Volvo's quality and reliability issues when I purchased mine. At that time, I hoped that Volvo had fixed the known issues after its first 4 models years. With the exception of minor BLIS issues, a software update to fix a blank screen, and fixing the rear roof glass seal, I haven't had any other issues. I'm now 3 months shy of 6 years of ownership.