You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'd be playing it that it's not on you to find that proof, it was serviced by Vauxhall dealers so if they didn't follow the instructions then it's on them.
I wouldn't go that far even.
It was sold with a full service history. Are they admitting to lying? How about "if you fix it I won't take you to court for fraud"?
How late?
(incidentally, this is why some think you are being less than helpful and transparent - this is an obvious question and one you could have provided in your above post)
You're now in a grey area, IMHO. If late enough that it could have materially contributed to degradation and failure, then I can see why any repair obligation is considered to be voided. If a few days / miles then I'd tell them it's had no effect.
So then - there's two considerations I'd follow
1/ IF it was materially late, and IF that creates an increased likelihood of a catastrophic failure, then you might consider it should have been on the servicing dealer (EH) to flag this to the owner with a recommendation to pay to have it changed before it became a whole engine? Did they do that (anything on the service record, etc.)
2/ Did the supplying dealer sell with a Full Main Dealer service history? Did they flag it's not been serviced on time, did you have the opportunity to inspect the service record and identify this in advance of agreeing the sale? Was the price adjusted to reflect that it was effectively all at your risk now? If not then I'd be arguing goods 'not as described' and getting the supplying dealer to pay for the repair.
it isn't jon as i don't know
16 weeks late jon
Understood, apols.
As it's highly salient to your claim, I reckon that's something you need to demand from the dealership / motability. In any case, surely the mileage and date is in the service book, or is that in the car?
No way I'd be giving up on this, either way I think you are owed at least a partial refund / contribution, with level decided by how aware they did or didn't make you that the FSH wasn't really a FSH. But also tempered by, whether that was something you had the opportunity to check.
16 weeks - yep, big enough that in my mind it is a compromise you sh/could have been made aware of, but also should have checked.
The book is on the car. I wasn't made aware of this. I shouldn't have needed to check as it was advertised as fsh.
So that's your argument, with the supplying dealer.
If 16w late still counts as FSH, then it's been fully serviced and they need to fix it
If 16w late doesn't count as FSH, and consequently claim is not supported, then they mis-sold you a car with FSH when apparently 16w late doesn't mean FSH.
I'd be writing and asking which would they prefer appears on the small claims court paperwork? (up to £10k for SCC)
[personally, I would always have checked anyway, because of exactly situations like this. Maybe our resident car dealer's 20 years of experience can add some thinking on whether supplying cars with FSH and then rejecting claims for not having FSH is standard behaviour?]
I wont add anything further to this from tech perspecitive (i think enough has been said), but if you find wording emails/letters an issue and i can whole heartedly recommend using ChatGPT or Grok to help you. It's very easy to paste in the comms you've had and ask the systems to reference and argue against relevant legislation and case studies - they are surprisngly accurate and vey well worded responses.
Thanks sui
So that's your argument, with the supplying dealer.
If 16w late still counts as FSH, then it's been fully serviced and they need to fix it
If 16w late doesn't count as FSH, and consequently claim is not supported, then they mis-sold you a car with FSH when apparently 16w late doesn't mean FSH.
I'd be writing and asking which would they prefer appears on the small claims court paperwork? (up to £10k for SCC)
This here seems to be a very important point in the whole matter, do you have a copy of the original advert?, or a screenshot, or any paperwork from them which states in writing that it had a FSH?
If you don't then I strongly suspect they will claim it was not sold with a FSH, unless you can prove it.
Regardless of it all, I feel for you, it's a crappy situation and a whole load of hassle you can do without. Hopefully it is resolved soon.
Google your registration. You might well find the original advert even after it's been taken down.
Screenshot it.
But it still sounds like a them problem if you can prove it was bought in goodwill with an advertised FSH. Their lack of process is not your fault.
£8608
Jesus wept! Have they at least given a very thorough breakdown of that figure?
Any outstanding finance. ?
Good point, you may have protections via consumer credit if you used CC or HP to finance it.
Also in googling that - I found this useful read which includes
"Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it’s illegal for dealers to provide incomplete or false information or engage in other unfair business practices"
- so while I still stick by my 'should have checked the FSH of the car rather than take their word for it' it's actually more on your side that that; I'd suggest under those regs if they hadn't told you the FSH was long overdue then they have provided false information. Find the advert and see what it claimed at the time!
If none of those are red flags, and they still insist it's on you I'd be issuing letter before action and starting to think of a small claims court. I suspect that if they are (IMHO, in full knowledge what they're doing is wrong) following a policy of rejecting claims on the basis a number of people don't know their rights and pay up, having a judgement against them that can then be publicised would see them reaching for their chequebook of goodwill in no time at all.
That's the cost of a new engine and installation..
other news we have not had to strip the engine further to determine the engine is needing replacement, we found a crack in the cam carrier and chain links are missing. These small parts will have gone through the intake with some certainty.
@jon - no sign of the Advert I'm afraid. Seems like it's all against me
I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said... But I think the critical thing as said, is can you actually prove the car was sold with "FSH".
That's the ace up your sleeve really, if you can demonstrate that.Was it ever advertised on auto trader or whatever? Maybe you can find a cached advert..
Was it bought as a dealer approved used car?
A few dealers have these schemes where it’s been through their 100 point check of whatever they do and normally one of the things is that the cars have full service history. If yours was an approved used then that would imply that the service history is good.
other news we have not had to strip the engine further to determine the engine is needing replacement, we found a crack in the cam carrier and chain links are missing. These small parts will have gone through the intake with some certainty.
On a technical point, how on earth would a camchain end up in the intake?
I'd be all over the paperwork to find anywhere where it's explicit that the car hasn't been serviced in line with requirements, or that they recommend that the 7mm chain is fixed, etc. - any failure to do that and i'd be on them with the clause I mentioned above like a seagull on chips.
Back to first principles; up to 6mo a failure is considered to have been there at time of purchase. After 6mo the onus is on you to show it was there at point of purchase which I think you can adequately do, so claim against the dealer that sold it to you on that basis.
STW is an amazing detective agency - what's the reg, someone will find the advert in some cache or other.
I really hope you can prove it was advertised as FSH.
On a technical point, how on earth would a camchain end up in the intake? - I assumed they meant the oil pickup.
Sl21hpj
how on earth would a camchain end up in the intake
Exactly. Even when run inside the engine (rather than external), the camchain does not have any route to get into the intake. I would presume they mean some of the valves heads are damaged in the cylinders, and , possibly the chain has dropped into the sump, and maybe ended up in the bottom end, but, theres no way the camchain should end up in the inlet without a major hole in the engine.
And the line ‘a crack in the cam carrier’ - has that caused the failure, or did the failed chain cause the crack? I’d expect the latter, but dont know that engine, so may be wrong. I agree with most others, this is a Dealer problem, they will try to get out of it, but if needed, you would likely win in Court if they dont succumb first.
Can't find it - needs way back archive machine.
What dealer was it sold from and when?
Ianae so cannot answer any of the engine queries lol
Rnp you have a message
Cam carriers crack due to the timing failing, the force of piston hitting an open valve punches the rocker/follower upwards. This cracks the 'block' that the camshafts run in.
The Combo van with that engine has 2 year / 25,000 intervals (my Dispatch is the same). I used to think the vans had a bigger sump, but now not so sure.
If both van and MPV have the same oil change volume, filter part number and oil spec it is also an argument that the 16 week over-run (on I presume a 12 month service interval) shouldn't be relevant. It is at least another angle of discussion.
Anybody could apply for a Citroen (Stellantis) parts pages login, but unfortunately I can't find it on the current website.
Van and MPV do have different oil volumes,.AFAIK.
is this the right engine? https://www.neobrothers.co.uk/car-parts/engine/complete-engines/oe-engine-citroen-ds-ford-peugeot-vauxhall-toyota-1-5-diesel-dv5r-1634153980
idle curiosity
I'm not so sure the van/MPV's do have different volumes. The bigger ones don't - my Vivaro Life (MPV) is on commercial service intervals and had the same 6l oil capacity.
My van's just over 3 years old and has had one service. Next is due October by the dealer, then it will be on annual services (because that's when I'll get them done).
Fingers crossed for OP.
looks like both van and car sumps on the dv5 engine are 3.75l
looks like the combo van servicing has been revised officially to 12m 20k miles on vaux website ref the combo van .... although plenty of lease cos still advertising the 24month 25k miles.
also - what interval is in your hand book..... i understand these were all 21k/24 months when released....
as i keep saying, the service book is in the car at the garage, in doncaster
@bikerevivesheffield sorry to hear of your problems. Can I recommend Citizens Advice Bureau? I’ve found them extremely helpful so far after a local window firm thought it ok to fit different windows than the premium ones specified! They talk you through the process and there are appropriate letter templates to use, it’s all done on the telephone and very friendly. Send every letter “signed for” even if it’s within a couple of miles. Unfortunately we’ve just had to issue a notice of court action but hopefully they’ll then perhaps accept that they’ve been dishonest! Good luck with the car.
cheers dude
Worth checking if you have legal expenses on your house insurance too.
ooh on it - thanks
as i keep saying, the service book is in the car at the garage, in doncaster
They should have a record of the services, bits of paper aside.
And.. @bikerevivesheffield if you find yourself in even more dire straits, I don’t mind making a financial contribution to help you, I’m sure others will too. It has happened before on STW!
Might to check how many 1.5 HDi owners there are on STW before starting that ;-). I, for one, am certainly not panicking that I might've bought a grenade as a family vehicle
Worth checking if you have legal expenses on your house insurance too.
Generally that's there to protect you, not to litigate.
House insurance is to protect your <del>house </del> mortgage companies assets , so it's in the mortgage co's interest to make sure that someone trying to get money out of you isn't successful and doesn't end up taking that house from them, hence it's bundled in with the insurance you have to take as a condition of the mortgage.
Generally that's there to protect you, not to litigate.
No. Legal expenses cover can take action against third parties.
From Google ai:
Key Features of Legal Expenses Cover:
Access to legal advice:
Many policies include a 24/7 legal advice helpline.
Financial protection:
Cover typically ranges from £50,000 to £100,000 per claim, depending on the insurer.
Wide range of situations:
Can cover disputes related to employment, property, consumer contracts, personal injury, and more.
Optional or standard:
Some insurers include it in their standard home insurance policies, while others offer it as an optional add-on.
I suspect given my experience they would be of little to no use for this - when we enquired about a third party claim they said we had a very strong case but they weren't interested in taking on because the size of claim, and their chance of winning fees plus a % of the claim was too small for them to be bothered with. It's not like defence solicitors and obligation to defend clients 'next cab off the rank' style, it's a commercial decision what they will support.
And given this could easily be litigated via a small claim's court process (up to £10,000) with virtually no likelihood of damages and prob not even costs I suspect their very reasonable advice would be to follow that course.
I'm going to assume this is Evans halshaw down Hillsborough , nothing you have posted led me to this conclusion but past experience and knowing staff there sounds just like the usual MO for the imbeciles on Penistone road
As an aside I used To listen to a chap on LBC called Dean Dunham. He always had really good advice regards these kind of situations and that it seemed to be that the dealership had to prove that the fault wasn't there when they sold the car. These multibility cards are actually bought by these dealerships from a particular website as they come back off motability. Pretty sure it's a servicing requirement to meet the the standards of motability. The car must be serviced by a main dealer otherwise it's not warranted so that there might be your actual get out clause. The fact that they knew it was a motability car. It had to have had full service history whether it was late or not isn't your responsibility and basically the company that bought it would have known already that It was serviced 16 weeks late you would be able to get the same information out of them
Not penistone road
the dealership had to prove that the fault wasn't there when they sold the car
Within the first six months, which the OP is outside.
it's not warranted
Still not a warranty issue.
That was kind of my point the car couldn't have been warrantied due to the 16 week late servicing requirement
As I used to listen to Mr Dunham every Sunday on the consumer hour if it did go to small claims then the guy could argue that the expectation was there that a main dealer would have full service history as the car was
a) a mobility car of which the service plan is a requirement
b) it's coming from a main dealer where the salesman may have said yes in order to sell this I will say it's got FSH, this bit was my point it couldn't possibly have had this due to it being off it's service schedule
Having been through the mill with Evans halshaw on 3 different vehicles all citroens with ad blue problems , a failure on a cactus at 22k then the replacement tank 8 k later , A new cactus where they swore the adblue tank issues were fixed only to fail at 40 k and a Berlingo which was a motability car at 1700 miles
We initially were told it's not this it's not that there is no issue with the adblue systems to now being at the point where there's basically a class action suit that is covering UK cars for failed ad blue tanks and systems and we are getting a payout for the shysters lying through teeth at the time and us forking out for a fault
The same thing seems to be developing with the 7mm chains on these engines fitted to PSA Peugeot citroens and these vauxhall variants all using the same engine
Unfortunately the reality is small claims them or cough up from memory the letter before action usually brings them to their senses
On a getting it fixed note there's a good place in Rotherham called tech 2 in Rotherham guy used to work for Evans Citroen and would easily fix that
Cougats point is this is nothing to do with any warranty even if within six months. This is about his legal right to a satisfactory car without faults at purchase.
Is the onus on the dealer to prove that it WASN'T sold with FSH?
That was kind of my point the car couldn't have been warrantied due to the 16 week late servicing requirement
And my point is, as soon as you use the word "warranty" it gives them weasel room.
Once more with feeling: Buying a used car from a dealer affords you the same rights as new. Under the Consumer Rights Act goods have to be as described - if it was sold with a FSH when it didn't have one then it fails this test - and of satisfactory quality - I'd argue that exploding after 7 months fails on this point also.
It is not a warranty issue. It is a "either take this car and fix it or stick it up your arse and I'll have my money back kkthxbi" issue.
Oh, and,
Whilst obviously very difficult to prove, if the salesman told you it had a FSH, that's still legally binding.
Whilst obviously very difficult to prove, if the salesmantoldyou it had a FSH, that's still legally binding.
I'd go even further than that on the burden of proof of what the buyer was / wasn't told.
My reading of the autootrader link that I put previously, (p4)
"Under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, it’s illegal for dealers to provide incomplete or false information or engage in other unfair business practices"
- so while I still stick by my 'should have checked the FSH of the car rather than take their word for it' it's actually more on your side that that; I'd suggest under those regs if they hadn't told you the FSH was long overdue then they have provided false information.
And if they did, then I assume that it'll be somewhere on the documentation to cover them for this eventuality.
No evidence that they told you the engine was at risk of eating itself, would to me mean that they can't now say that you should have known. They have provided incomplete information.
Reading this with interest as I've got a similar 1.5 diesel Vauxhall Combo MPV.
Has anyone here replaced the 7mm cam-chain with the upgraded 8mm chain, camshafts and other bits?
How much did it cost and who did you use?
A little late for the original poster unfortunately, but 2k for a new chain as opposed to 8k for a new engine and less worry about the engine blowing up seems reasonable!
Thanks
Reading this with interest as I've got a similar 1.5 diesel Vauxhall Combo MPV.
Has anyone here replaced the 7mm cam-chain with the upgraded 8mm chain, camshafts and other bits?
How much did it cost and who did you use?
A little late for the original poster unfortunately, but 2k for a new chain as opposed to 8k for a new engine and less worry about the engine blowing up seems reasonable!
Thanks
It looks like this may fit (check codes)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/146277835885
Seems not too bad a price to me. If not wanting to fit yourself I'm sure a local recommended mechanic will be happy to quote a price.
To end this hopefully!
Vauxhall have agreed in writing that this is their fault and will pay 100% of the bill!
Vauxhall have agreed in writing that this is their fault and will pay 100% of the bill!
Now that is very interesting. In what way are they admitting fault? Servicing, design issue, something else?
When you're back on the road and happy with the van/car it would be awesome if you were willing to send a copy to me
Are they giving a loan vehicle also whilst yours is awaiting repairs
result.
Glad they finally saw sense this really isnt your fault !
Wow - great news bikerevivesheffield!
I bet that was a relief. Nice one.
Let's hope they sort it out in a timely manner now. 👍
it's in the workshop, the engine is on site, so hoping for tuesday
Ace! I like a story with a happy ending. 🙂
I couldn't give any advice on the thread (I know cock all about 1.5 diesel vans) but was really feeling worried for you - glad it's worked out!
Good news.
Out of goodwill, I expect. Or did they really say it was Vauxhall's fault? For the benefit of others can you let us know what the exact wording was, even if you still don't disclose who.
no reason given just
Dammit, should've figured they'd be arse covering by admitting to nothing. Ah well, glad it's getting sorted!
Great news! It must be massive relief for you.
Fantastic news, very happy for you!
Well done on the result, I've been reading a number of Vauxhall, Citroen etc. forums on that engine. It looks like if the chain fails at less than 5 years or 100k with full service history, it's classed as manufacturing fault and they'll replace it. Although I wouldn't want to argue the case especially if the service history isn't perfect!
Yeah! Shiny brand new engine!
Great news indeed.
Reading this with interest as I've got a similar 1.5 diesel Vauxhall Combo MPV.
Has anyone here replaced the 7mm cam-chain with the upgraded 8mm chain, camshafts and other bits?
How much did it cost and who did you use?
A little late for the original poster unfortunately, but 2k for a new chain as opposed to 8k for a new engine and less worry about the engine blowing up seems reasonable!
On the basis of this and myriad other similar stories on t'web, I would be looking to avoid paying anything myself. My actions in order would be
1/ digging out all the paperwork from when you bought it and checking that it had FSH, ideally main dealer and that ANY discrepancies are clear - including
2/ that these were done on time and with the right oils
3/ that anything you've done since is on time and to spec
4/ and then going back to the dealer you bought from and asking them to check for you that it has the upgraded 8mm chain, and if not whether they can confirm that it will be OK to the stipulated replacement interval because if it isn't and it fails before that point then you will be holding them liable as this is a known fault that is (assumed to be, but a pretty safe assumption) there at point you purchased, and that they didn't make you aware of that at the time in contravention of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
5/ and so, do they want to pay to prevent it breaking at cost of a new engine (ca £8k as per above) by replacing the defective parts for maybe a couple of k cost to them.
Bluntly; this should be a recall and the manufacturers are not meeting obligations in this regard so hold them to it individually instead.
Excellent!