The $$$ for a replacement motor are at ridiculous costs. I'd be suprised if I couldn't pick up a fairly low KM 2nd hand unit for around $1.5K-$2K. $7K+ for a 2nd hand one? somebody is taking the pee!
intrade,
Jan 5, 7:59am
so the driver of this car destroyed the engine by ignoring the fact it was overdue for a service . taking it to non trained professionals, because if they where trained they would have told the driver what i just wrote here. and by not reading the owners manual it probably states in there about regeneration process of the emissions procedure somewhere in that book.
kazbanz,
Jan 5, 7:59am
With regards to the CAUSE of the problem. Im in agreement with intrade. By taking the car to midas for a service Im fairly certain that the cause of the engine check light coming on was not investigated. If it was then the issue would have been addressed. Incidently a vehicles insurance doesn't cover mechanical failures. Regarding insurance. Normal car insurance doesn't/won't cover a mechanical failure. If the purchaser had invested in Mechanical breakdown insurance then they had invalidated that by being more than 1000km over the service requirement. THAT is the part Im scratching my head over. 1000 or more of driving with the sump overfilled. Yet it "wasn't her fault'
intrade,
Jan 5, 8:01am
it does not end with a new engine i tell you that new engine is blowing up if midas whom dont have a factory scanner and training for correct service service that car. Why is that? because the particulet filter is about completely full now and blocks the exhaust up unless it is replaced or professionally de-conterminated now.
dr.doolittle,
Jan 5, 8:14am
A fairer refund would have been to the 'current' value of the car in running condition. I dont think a full refund was fair.
tgray,
Jan 5, 8:19am
The tribunal has basically said it's all the dealers fault and a 100% refund means they think she had no part to play in this. The evidence however, proves otherwise. Weird.
dr.doolittle,
Jan 5, 8:31am
Even IF she was not at fault, she had 10 months & 17000km of motoring out of the car. I dont think anyone apart from her should have to pay for that. Hence, the current value would be fairer.
intrade,
Jan 5, 8:34am
The latest diesel have adblue -def system the driver display on some make will tell you def fluid low! you have 600km till it runs out etc in the end if you keep to choose to ignore the engine will go in limp home mode limmited speed and only run for a limmited time also. Why do you think the manufacturer done that now? because of ignorant bastards behind the streering wheel whom probably driven a old toyota whom never ever had a oil change since new and it lasted 250,000km like that.
there is more about this i told you vw are not the only ones cheating emissions. the others run there cars in the lab normal and run the cheat programms after its on the road for a while. especially adblue diesel i explain why that is next.
intrade,
Jan 5, 8:49am
now how does adblue work its a urea injector in the exhaust to treat emission there is a small tank of fluid . Trucks have a huge tank of adblue and there is the problem the fluid used for short trip driving would be used up quickly and you would have to refill DEF-adblue urea as owner nomerous times between services. So what to do ,, run a bypass programm while the car is not in a laboratory environment right, because you are not cheating if you dont get caught. that is what they do to lower the adblue consumption. vw on euro 6 emission is the one whom cheated the least with emission tampering . the fix is now emission rules got relaxed so all cars dont cheat as much now lol.
buyit59,
Jan 5, 8:55am
A 'reasonable consumer wouldnt expect the engine to fail after 10 months'. but it was not 10 months it was 5 years old . I think it was extremely bad luck for the buyer but think the dealer got shafted as well . Should have at least been a shared cost and I don't think dealer should have had to pay the majority .
lookoutas,
Jan 5, 1:15pm
It's all gooble de gooks, but I sorta understood that, I think?
So if a engine goes 1200 KMs over recomended service interval it can be expected to throw rod . yeah right . Jeez my old E36 @ 268000k just gets it done once a year &last year it was 1500 kms over the 10 k interval & hasnt missed a beat since Good decision ,though feel owner should share some of the cost if getting a new engine .
kazbanz,
Jan 5, 1:58pm
Elect I think you are missing the several important points. 1) the car soon after purchase had the engine check light come on and the engine service light come on. The car was "serviced" by Midas. There is no mention of the remedial work if any done regarding engine check light. 2)There is now no way to establish if Midas overfilled the oil 3)There is every indication that it was during a long run that the engine died, Had the engine been serviced or at the very least the oil level checked then the issue wouldn't have happened
_peas,
Jan 5, 3:11pm
Is this the disputes tribunal? I really think they need some people there with a background knowledge of the auto trade and how a car performs/reacts. I was found majority at fault after an uninsured failed to give way to me at a Give Way and t-boned me as I performed a RH turn into the road she was meant to be waiting on. Physics was on my side with the damage pointing to my version of events, the law was also on my side with the layout of the intersection agreed to by all parties but somehow, with no evidence, I was deemed to be speeding. because the middle aged lady who failed to give way said so.
franc123,
Jan 5, 7:47pm
Well after lighting the fuse I better return to this after nearly a day, some interesting and varied responses there, the reason I raised this case is because it highlights what a vexing problem this can be for the industry. it shows why modern diesels need both correct maintenance and prompt attention to faults, why correct OPERATION is equally critical and what can possibly happen if you don't. My personal view was the dealer got treated pretty harshly by the DT, the only mistake that MAY have been made was the lack of attention to informing the client about correct operation of modern diesels and perhaps emphasising the desirability of servicing by an agent, they otherwise sold their client a functional vehicle and what happened subsequently was really out of their control. Determining the actual cause of the failure wasn't going to be clear cut, there was a bit of 'yeah nah' for and against both the theories put forward, whether it was excessive fuel injection occuring due to a mechanical failure of an injector which gradually got worse, or the sheer amount of oil dilution that occurs after several aborted or otherwise unsuccessful DPF regenerations. Was it sheer operator error? Was Midas to blame for adding an unknown fuel additive to a fuel system (filter in particular) that caused problems with the injector? Fuel or lubricant additives shouldn't be used unless specified by manufacturer. Whatever it was I think it really underscores why dealers both new and used need to inform both staff and customers of the possible consequences of not operating or maintaining vehicles right, and accurately gauging a particular vehicles FITNESS FOR PURPOSE when selling to them. I think the DT's ruling weighed very heavily on that last bit, it's otherwise difficult to fathom why the full liability got put on the dealer. Any further thoughts about how the industry as a whole should deal with this? Its easy to just sell MBI to them in case of the unexpected but as we all know that doesn't cover all possible problems, and especially if contamination has happened. Experience tells me that simply telling motorists to read manuals and familiarise themselves with what are really some odd procedures merely to keep emission control systems working right isn't very effective.
franc123,
Jan 5, 7:56pm
Yes, thanks I did have a read through those after you supplied a link to it a few weeks ago, while much of the technical issues may be a bit beyond most people, it does show how much risk you guys take in the sales trade. Some of the rulings are fair enough, others are alarming to say the least in favour of the consumer.
snoopy221,
Jan 5, 8:39pm
He referred the Tribunal to an email dated July 2015 from another repairer who stated after reading Barton??
fordcrzy,
Jan 6, 12:40pm
that "service" by midas was just an oilchange. lets not call it a service. they certainly gave her the royal "up sell" treatment with the filters and fuel treatment
franc123,
Jan 6, 1:21pm
Pity the fuel filter wasn't actually done or at least wasn't listed as being done. the scary part was an unnamed additive was given to the customer for later use.
elect70,
Jan 6, 1:52pm
Ok may not be dealers fault Didnt midas service the vehicle /do oil change etc ? when was this done , it doesnt say in the article . If so then cant say she didnt get it serviced .Why didnt they question them , some of their franchises have bad reps. could have put wrong additive in the tank . Something serious led to failure of injectors & something in the fuel would be first thing to look at .
fordcrzy,
Jan 6, 1:52pm
im going to assume she never had the major dsg transmission service done at 60K either. another latent defect waiting to pounce
fordcrzy,
Jan 6, 1:54pm
that article that was linked later on had all the details with kms etc on it. interesting that the service light only came on 600 kms after buying it originally.
zetec,
Jan 6, 3:07pm
The dealer might have been wise to have had the car serviced by Giltraps before sale - given it only had 600km to run before the next service due - that would have established a baseline of fitness for purpose and then the finger could have been pointed at Midas (assuming she selected them to do the next service) and the buyer's contributory negligence in overrunning service intervals and never checking the oil level. Also the dealer, in hindsight admittedly, might have been better to have done a deal with her to share the cost of a replacement engine.
bwg11,
Mar 19, 9:37pm
I've just read all the October rulings under recent decisions linked to in post #37. Bloody unbelievable. There is no penalty for trying to reject a car so every halfwit will try it on. A 1999 Familia done 197,000 kms (sold retail for $2900) was rejected because the fuel gauge didn't work and a cam belt was due in about 10,000 kms. The tribunal decided not to award $750 costs against the purchaser. No wonder there are so many frivolous claims when there are no costs imposed on the claimant, and in most cases the tribunal's decision is against the trader.
Can't help wondering what sort of clown writing the legislation thought that the definition of "acceptable quality" for consumer goods was workable for complex mechanical and electrical devices like motor vehicles. This expects second hand vehicles to be as good as new vehicles, while the market says otherwise. Hypothetically, a new Volvo S60 is $70,000, a 2005 second S60 is asking around $10,000. Doesn't this indicate the public consider the second hand vehicle can only be expected to have around 15% of the "quality" of the new vehicle?
In the case being discussed my sympathies are entirely with the dealer. The implementation and decisions of the Tribunals application of the CGA seems as biased and as unpredictable as those of the Employment Court. The only thing that can be reliably predicted is the trader or employer will be found to be at fault, irrespective of the irresponsibility or stupidity of the employee or purchaser.
In this case the full refund with no deduction for 10 months and 17,000 kms is ridiculous, when there was obvious and admitted fault on the part of the owner.
Time to get the ear of your MP and tell them you are over this stupid nanny state legislation. Now, employers are afraid to employ, and soon with the CGA traders will be afraid to trade.
No wonder dealers won't touch old Euros, and often won't quote a trade-in price until the have the vehicle placed elsewhere.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.