The OP says "The car has been recovered to a non-Volvo dealer."
No mention that they have carried out any work. Maybe the OP's recovery / breakdown service are only obliged to take the vehicle to the nearest available garage.
If 'unlucky john' could come back and clear up a few points; such as who diagnosed the cambelt has gone, who will be carrying out the work, etc.
|
Will have to check to be sure but the cambelt interval for the D5 (and all Volvo 5-cylinder engines) is much longer than that - something like 96,000 miles or ten years. My S60 D5 is coming up to six years and 80,000 miles on its first cambelt. (I've had it from new.) I've discussed it with my dealer's service department and they advise changing it some time in the 80,000s.
If it were my car, I'd check that service history very carefully, then write a nice, non-confrontational letter to Volvo UK and hope for the best. The cambelt schedule is printed on the back of the service checklists that you should have received with the car.
|
|
|
No work has been carried out yet as it's the weekend.
Recovred by Green Flag who diagnosed the problem (broken cambelt ate through the casing).
recovery contract was to nearest garage on their list to home address.
As to who will be carry out the work - that is really the point of the query. If we can get Volvo to agree to pay we will get them to collect the vehicle.
Any thoughts on how to approach them ?
|
Who's done the servicing for you? A Volvo dealer? If so, start with him.
Edited by Optimist on 01/06/2008 at 20:16
|
My 2005 service book states (for a Euro III 163bhp D5) states 8 years or 96,000 miles.
Therefore, I would expect Volvo to contribute at least 50%, and I would be surprised if they didn't offer that without much fuss. Assuming the service history is all spot on and done by Volvo dealers.
Volvo cambelts don't tend to break before they're due, so you really are "unlucky"!!
|
If push comes to shove, then legal liability rests with the supplying dealer - if that's a local dealer and they also do the servicing then that would be helpful. If Volvo are unco-operative then you might need to get the repair done and then pursue a small claims case against the dealer.
In the first instance all you can do is approach them and very gently make them aware that your expectation is that as this failure is within the service interval then Volvo should repair at its cost.
|
|
As BP says. The expiry of the warranty does not mean that the maker can escape the consequences of a manufacturing fault. In theory. One thought: was the vehicle parked the whole time, or under the gentle care of the airport car-park franchise? Did it acquire a few miles whilst you were away?
|
The official change time is 96,000 miles / 8 year. However, if the car is on the long life service intervals (18k between services) then they state it is 108,000 miles.
They're not known for failing early.
|
This must be a 2003 car, so will be on the 12k service interval, and 96k for a cambelt.
It does sound interesting that it failed so soon after being picked up from airport parking. Getting to prove it is something they did is another matter....
|
update !
The local non-franchise garage diagnosed the problem as faulty timing belt pre-tensioners leading to the belt breaking.
This was relayed to the Volvo main dealer who we bought the car from and who have serviced the car since it was new.
They have agreed this shouldn't have happended and want to look at the car before accepting any "liability". They've transported it to their dealership.
I'll keep you posted.
|
Well my S60 D5 cambelt pre tensioners went on Thursady last causing the car to go BANG.
75K miles , Fully Serviced on time by a Main dealer and last serviced at 72K.
Result-
New engine needed cost about £8000.
Volvo have offered 50%
That leaves me with £4000 to pay on a 2003 car worth about £5000 trade-in.
What a crappy offer!
Any suggestions apart from find a lawyer!
|
>>What a crappy offer!
Really? Doubt you'll find anyone else who will give you £4K worth of work - at retail prices - for nothing.
You could try and push Volvo to give you even more, but the offer of half the price on a five-year-old car seems pretty good to me.
|
You could try and push Volvo to give you even more but the offer of half the price on a five-year-old car seems pretty good to me.
I think it's outrageous. If you service the car in line with the manufacturers recommendations then parts shouldn't break within their recognised service life. The fact that it did break would indicate a manufacturing defect and that's a Sale Of Goods Act issue.
Are we really to write off 5yr old cars as they're beyond economical repair?
Edited by Bill Payer on 03/09/2008 at 10:57
|
"I think it's outrageous."
Not really no, the warranty is for 3 years from new, not 5 years.
Three years is the point at which Volvo take no further responsibility. Stumping up half the cash is genuinely because Volvo want to - they have no legal obligation to do so.
Sure, it's frustrating (and VERY expensive to fix) that the belt went before its interval, and Volvo have recognised that and pushed £4k towards the owner as compensation.
Seems pretty fair to me, it is a wear and tear part after all. Most will last until 96k miles, but there's bound to be the odd one that doesn't.
Don't forget that that owner then benefits from having a car fitted with a brand new engine too, you can't expect that for nothing.
If Volvo thought the car would last forever without major failures then they would give it 5, 7 or maybe even 10 year warranties, but they don't, so they won't!
|
Not really no the warranty is for 3 years from new not 5 years.
Warranty is irrelevant. Haven't you often seen the phrase that warranties and guarantees are offered "in addition to your statutory rights"?
they have no legal obligation to do so.
See above. Sale of Goods act and its various amendments. Goods should be of merchantable quality and durable. ie they should last a reasonable length of time. The grey area is is what is "reasonable"? It's considered to be 5-6yrs for domestic appliances, for example.
I think Volvo would be on a sticky wicket here as the item that failed has a Volvo defined maintenance interval and it failed within that.
Don't forget that that owner then benefits from having a car fitted with a brand new engine
What benefit is that? In what way would the new engine e better than the old one - would it be faster, or more economical? The days of "recon engine" being a benefit when you sell a car on are long gone. Most people would expect an engine to last the life of the car.
|
See above. Sale of Goods act and its various amendments. Goods should be of merchantable quality and durable.
But that's only within reason. They're not expected to last forever and never go wrong, even in a small number of cases. Use some perspective here.
>> Don't forget that that owner then benefits from having a car fitted with a brand >> new engine What benefit is that?
You and I know that is no real benefit (although the old engine might have been on the way out, who knows?) but it's still betterment than where the poster was before the cambelt failed. A new engine can only be seen to be better than a 75k engine in those terms. Or would you also argue if the entire car was replaced that would no better either?
|
But that's only within reason. They're not expected to last forever and never go wrong..
True, and I'm not sure what "within reason" means. However, I would say that any routine service items, such as belt and tensioners, should last their service life.
What if an oil filter failed at 11mths and dumped the oil all over the road and the engine siezed? It wouldn't be reasonable to say, Oh well, they're only supposed to last a year, so you had a good run.
Or would you also argue if the entire car was replaced that would no better either?
I did "argue" that once - many years ago I was called and told "great news, your company car is being changed early (18mths vs 24mths) as the MD wants yours for his daughter."
"Smashing", I said - "so what do I get to replace it?". "What do you mean?" was the indignant response. "Same as you've got now".
"So in what way is that great news"? I asked. "I get the car I've got now, replaced with one exactly the same". Didn't go down too well!!
|
BP,
Not sure the value of the car is strictly relevant.
The only question, surely, is whether it's reasonable to expect the manufacturer to pay for a major breakdown at five years and 75k miles?
To me the answer is 'no', but maybe it is reasonable to expect a contribution, which then brings us to how much.
|
A 5 year old, 75.000 mile car could in fairness to be considered as halfway through its life. Any attempt to pursue redemption from the manufacturer under the sale of goods act or unfit for purpose would surely fail. (unless of course they were all failing - whcih plainly they are not)
This puts you firmly in "goodwill hands" 50% of the repair cost on a car thats 50% through its life sounds about right to me
|
Unlucky John, after seeking advice you promised an update on 3 June.
Where is it?
|
|
|
|
