|
At 37,000 miles you could have only ever paid the dealer to fix the fault, which at the time was the knackered turbo. They can't fix the premature wear and tear which you alone caused by neglecting to have it serviced for 27k and like it has been mentioned, they couldn't have predicted the amount of extra wear and tear without a crystal ball. You have no come back on the dealer whatsoever, the ball is entirely in your court.
|
And the moral of the story is?
Change the oil regularly, even if you do nowt else.
|
Guys, I think the OP has well and truly held his hand up to the forgotten services?
What I think he is saying is he paid to get it fixed and was not advised that this would be a temporary fix or that there may be other underlying problems developing in the future. If there was, by his own admission, he would have tried to sell it.
I have every sympathy for him in this respect, and that is where you would maybe expect a good dealer to take you to the side and say thats it working just now but........
However I don't believe that there is anything legal that can be done here.
|
The OP had the fault fixed, which I presume is what was asked of the dealer.
Did the OP ask that any parts which are likely to have suffered increased wear be also replaced (ie a new engine).
I think these are two different things, and I have to side with the dealer.
This wasn't a minor transgression from the service schedule, but a huge and catastrophic one.
|
|
If the car was still running and it only went in for a ticking noise to be diagnosed, why not put in back together, get it running and send it to auction.
|
A post on Pistonheads thats still current:
Need help as we have a 2006 56 plate Mazda3 with the 1.6 TDi engine. Turbo has blown and Mazda dealer says parts have got into engine so new engine is now needed at a cost of over 4k
Mazda has refused to contribute to his repair as
>>This is what they have hung their coat on "it was between 1500 and 2000 miles over due for a service so due to old oil this is why the turbo went and sent it's internals into the engine!"
Is this engine the same one as in the Peugeot Citroens and the new MINI?
Edited by J500ANT on 24/10/2009 at 12:08
|
I think this is key
At 55,000 miles, we take it to the garage to fix a ticking noise, they replace the injector manifold seals and diagnose top-end damage. Independent inspection confirms worn camshaft and top-end, likely to be oil starvation caused by carbon build-up in the oil galleries, which was the cause of the initial turbo failure.
Unless the garage stripped down the entire engine at the time of the turbo replacement, there is no way they could have found the carbon build up.
So a turbo replacement becomes an engine out and strip job.. an extra £1000 plus to the bill. Would the OP have accepted the need?
Frankly in law he has no leg to stand on. Gross abuse due to lack of service and then blame the garage for not knowing the likely side effects.. would not stand up in court.
|
Update:
The garage has agreed to replace the car with one of similar value/condition etc (but which works)
It took 3 months, letters from solicitors and finally the threat of going to court, but they have realised I know they didn't complete the turbo replacement properly, ie inadequate oil changes, hence not reducing the amount of gunky oil as they should have done.
I assume you all work for money-grabbing dealerships as you showed very little support for me, the consumer.
|
Well done Paul though would be interesting to hear this from the dealer's perspective. Did they realise they were totally in the wrong and admit this?
Or make a financial decision based on value of car, legal costs, PR etc?
|
I assume you all work for money-grabbing dealerships as you showed very little support for me the consumer.
A consumer who showed more than a degree of stupidity and complacency in not having the car serviced.
You were lucky, your "money grabbing dealer" did you a favour
Edited by Altea Ego on 07/01/2010 at 23:09
|
Going back to your 1st post paul,
This is typical of manufacturer dealers when you buy a brand new car or new but used car with the manufacturer warranty still valid on them. I bought a Seat Leon FR TDi (150bhp Diesel) from a private dealer that was religiously serviced by the previous owner by a Seat dealership. The service book has 6 religious Seat stamps in it .
The correct oil changes, oil filters, fuel filters have been ticked off by every Seat stamp in the 10,000 mile intervals, or so I'm led to believe.
I serviced it myself since 80,000 miles & I lost my job so money is tight. I got all the parts required myself from Kimber Frictions at £78 whereas the Kings Seat dealer on the A27 N/Baddesly quote me £250 plus VAT.
It was serviced at 70,000 miles by an independent garage. At 73,000 miles shorty after I bought it, I changed the oil myself because I noticed that the old oil from the dip-stick was very thick & gloopy for its last oil change & I knew the garage or Seat had either not:
A: changed the oil
B: used the right spec oil
C: BOTH!
When I serviced the car myself again at 80,000 miles I noticed that despite the ticks for Oil & Fuel Filter changes upto 70,000 miles... The actual VW/Audi Fuel filter had an expiry date for 2006, that was when the car had its 1st service at 10,000 miles. My car is at 80,500 miles so far & its had 6 Seat services, 1 garage service & 1 self-service. I couldn't see what expiry date the Oil filter had on it as it was black & mucky all over when I removed it but I suspect that its not been changed since 2006 either as it looked like someone had poured sticky tar into it!
As for reliability on neglect my car hasn't skipped a beat yet, it runs perfect like a dream with no rattles, turbo breakages or any repair bills, despite Seats service neglect. PD's are very surprisingly robust & can stand up to a lot of neglect (Mine certainly has so far) however,
a lot of these other more modern generation 16-valve common-rail diesels like 1.3/1.7/1.9 CDTi's & 1.4/1.6/1.8/2.0 TDCi's (like your C-Max) are far more complicated with injection systems they have a much higher diesel injection pressure rate also with DMF's & DPF's, they can't quite stand up to as much neglect or abuse like an older VW 8V PD engine can so all this impressive technology in nice new common-rail diesels can also die a more likely death much earlier if they are not religiously serviced properly by you & the manufacturer.
This is why I will never buy a brand new car. It takes £££'s of legal costs, 3 months without a car, endless of Letters from solicitors, threats for court action until they finally admit it then you are still not out of the woods, if anything else goes wrong with it during the warranty this could all happen again! Thats the kind of service you paid £17,000 for.
The other option... Skip getting your parts & labour by Ford as they scrupulously make money by a vicious "blame culture" system of a warranty by treating you like a mug & just get the required parts straight from Delphi yourself & pay a cheaper garage or friend/family/colleague who might be willing to do the work instead of battering a huge dent in your bank balance with legal aid to fight against them.
|
if anything else goes wrong with it during the warranty this could all happen again!
I guess this is why a lot of people use franchised dealers for servicing during the warranty period and change their cars every 3 years.
It doesn't really matter if the garage does it wrong or even doesn't bother - as long as you've got the receipt and stamp in the book then you're covered.
In the OP's case, I'm ever the consumer champion, but "forgetting" to service the car for 27,000 miles is a bit much. Also, however diligently they flushed everything out, whose to say what damage could have been started only to finally materialise some time later?
It's a bit like the diesel miss-fueling scenario. You can pay £5K and get the entire fuel system chnaged or you can drain and refill with petrol and cross your fingers, but the diesel high pressure pump could fail years later.
|
By the message above I'm offering you sympathy as a lot of people just seem to be bashing you with hammers unfairly by arguing against everything you say like they are a high court prosecutor or something. Ive had it too its just the nature of people to do this.
I'm not like that I will see things from all angles & work on a solution. Many people will blame you instantly for not servicing your car properly during the intervals, you may well not have done but we are all humans, not robots, we do have lots of things in our lives to think about other than cars like shopping, kids, bills, school, relatives, social events so it becomes quite easy to forget sometimes! The majority of people will quote you & say things like "if you serviced it during the correct intervals that would NEVER have happened" well thats not entirely always accurately %100 true...
I know myself what dealers can get up to during these so called "full services" where they claim to change filters & oil & they don't change them at all even when you religiously serviced your car during the intervals so this won't happen. Then they try to blame you for a worn camshaft or a blown turbo on neglect.
You could get someone who knows what they are doing to double check the filters & oil to see if they changed them. If they didn't & the expiry dates have long gone by then you have a case against them.
If you unintentionally neglected the service intervals given by the manufacturer (like you probably did) then you have a hard case to prove against them as car manufacturers are always out to make money. As I'm sure you are aware, They don't give two hoots about customers & keeping them happy they just care about the profit margins & marketing improvements thats why they blame things on you to help keep the costs down.
Ford warranty/aftercare service won't mess about with the Motability scheme/large scale companies/Emergency services who buy the cars in bulk because they know that they can get into deep poop if they mess them around & don't fix the cars. So they turn round & treat the paying customers badly instead! They know very well that 35 yearold average Joe living in Britain with 2 kids & a wife is going to have a home to run & can't afford the solicitor fees so he is easy meat to them & so is 21 yearold James, who is single, got the Ford on finance, still living at home with his mum & dad. Its terrible but its the way things are maybe get rid of your Focus C-Max & go for something else perhaps?
|
...I assume you all work for money-grabbing dealerships as you showed very little support for me, the consumer...
Oh dear, collective failure by the Back Room to tell the OP exactly what he wanted to hear.
Well done, Paul, for fighting the dealer all the way.
Contrary to popular opinion, many respectable businesses will capitulate and give a customer a little more than he is perhaps entitled to.
When I worked for a Renault dealer, there were several occasions when I thought we should, or at least could, have stood our ground, but didn't.
|
PaulTDCi.
I'm a great consumer champion when there's a valid case but have also spent 15yrs on the other side of the counter so a balanced view....
It is very likely that your failure to have the car serviced (two missed I think) was the root cause of this turbo, then engine, failure. The dealer failing to follow the oil change requirements of a turbo swap (as I understand you to say) was likely hardly a factor in this but a technicality you appear to have caught them out on.
So you caused your engine to fail but were very lucky you have twisted someone elses arm to pay for your mistake.
I note you comment they should have told you of the potential for further engine damage caused by the lack of servicing when the turbo was changed.... so as you put it you could have "got rid of the car asap".
Hmm so passing the future engine failure onto someone completely innocent. I just hope the replacement car you've swapped for doesn't have some underlying time-bomb for you when it's out of warranty.
When in the business I had a few customers over the years that would abuse their cars with missed oil changes (up to 40k on same oil) and low levels yet assume once it was eventually serviced that would somehow wipe the slate clean.... then they'd be quick grumble about any fallout from this lack of maintenance. I'd got these people off my books like a shot.
Edited by M.M on 08/01/2010 at 08:04
|
I can hardly believe it:
The OP doesn't service his car so it fails.
The dealer fixes the part that has failed at quite reasonable cost.
NOTE: The op would surely have rejected a complete engine replacement at that point had it been offered "we can replace the turbo sir and it should be OK or the whole engine to be safe" - "the turbo will be fine thanks".
When it then suffers further problems the OP tries to blaim the dealer on the basis that they should have changed the oil three times at the time of the turbo replacement when he could be bothered to get it done once himself in nearly 30k miles!!
NOTE: There are no firm guidelines as to how many times the oil has to be changed in the event that the owner should fail to have his car serviced and the turbo should fail at 37k miles rather than any other part that could just as easily have been damaged.
The dealer then agrees to provide another car of similar value and the OP says "money-grabbing dealerships".
NOTE: The OP should be concidering himself extremely fortunate and should be writing grovelling letter of thanks to the dealer principal.
No, I dont work in the industry, I just hope I dont have to pay more for the services on my Ford's because of the goodwill offered in cases like this !!!!!!
Rant over.
|
Many people will blame you instantly for not servicing your car properly during the intervals you may well not have done but we are all humans not robots we do have lots of things in our lives to think about other than cars like shopping kids bills school relatives social events so it becomes quite easy to forget
sometimes!
This is what I've never understood. My car is the second most expensive thing I own. It is a highly complicated piece of machinery that I rely on heavily to get around for work. It's not an item of white goods like (say) a washing machine. So it gets properly maintained, sometimes at the expense of other stuff (social events being one such). How could I forget that? I have all the other things to think about that you mention above and more besides. I just accord vehicle maintenance higher priority.
As regards your comments regarding manufacturers blaming consumers for failing to follow service schedules - what else do you expect them to do? If they didn't, then none of us would ever need bother servicing our cars because we would be able to pin it on the manufacturer if anything ever went wrong.
I'll say it again: cars need proper maintenance.
To the OP: a good result for you (well done) but you have been very lucky here. In the words of Mr T, I pity the fool who buys that car next!!
|
Cheddar, summed up nicely for me... I'd love to know why they gave in, as it sounds to me like the OP's fault in the first place...
All I'd say to him is that you were very lucky this time, but don't hold your breath if you do it again as I think that story will do the rounds of your local garages!
|
As I'm sure you are aware They don't give two hoots about customers & keeping them happy they just care about the profit margins
Companies (public ones at least) are legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Not their customers.
Ford warranty/aftercare service won't mess about with the Motability scheme/large scale >> companies/Emergency services who buy the cars in bulk
That's not been my experience of running company lease cars, particularly those with limited mileage warranty - usually 60K. Once they're out of warranty nothing is covered, and if you don't get the car serviced then the leasing company gets charged and they recharge your company.
|
>>Companies (public ones at least) are legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Not their customers. >>
Bill Payer: Which law is that?
All I'd say to him is that you were very lucky this time, but don't hold your breath if you do it again as I think that story will do the rounds of your local garages! >>
b308 - I should hope that the story does the rounds of all garages nationally, so that they all know what they need to do to comply with their legal duties when carrying out repairs and servicing, and thereby avoid losing legal challenges. If they are sure that the repair/service provided has been provided with reasonable skill and care, then the garages can rest easy.
I assume you all work for money-grabbing dealerships as you showed very little support for me, the consumer. >>
PaulTDCi's comment above with regard to the responses he got in this thread, the best way to summarise it all IMO is to quote this by the Webmaster:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=33...5
"Advice within this or any other, part... - Webmaster
........................of the Backroom.
I don't think this is an issue, I can't see how it could be, but I'll state it here anyway to be safe.
The advice and opinions given here are freely given by people in their free time, and are just that - non-expert advice and opinions.
Should you choose to follow any piece of advice, take or not take a particular course of action, then you do so at your own risk.
If you have a doubt or the issue is significant, then you should get a professional opinion first.
The advice here is pretty good, but its not guaranteed. "
Edited by jbif on 08/01/2010 at 10:25
|
>>Companies (public ones at least) are legally obliged to act in the best interests of their shareholders. Not their customers. >> Bill Payer: Which law is that?
Companies Acts 1985 and 2006 for a start. There will be a wealth of case law on the subject, also.
|
Companies Acts 1985 and 2006 for a start. There will be a wealth of case law on the subject, also. >>
Nonsense. If a company fails in its duty to customers, it fails in its duty to shareholders.
|
>> Companies Acts 1985 and 2006 for a start. There will be a wealth of case law on the subject also. >> Nonsense. If a company fails in its duty to customers it fails in its duty to shareholders.
Duty to shareholders = maximise profit and hence shareholder value. Paying out money for a thing caused wholly or in part by customer's failure (whether intentional or not) to follow required maintenance schedules - which is not the fault of the company - reduces profit.
Would you invest money in a company that effectively handed money away to people who break its products because they don't read the instructions (which is what this boils down to)? I wouldn't.
Of course there are obligations companies have to customers contained with sale of goods legislation but those are distinct from the fiduciary duties companies owe to their shareholders.
Edited by paulb {P} on 08/01/2010 at 11:13
|
>> Bill Payer: Which law is that?
As noted elsewhere, plus of couse, Ford is an American company and they're for ever being sued by their shareholders.
b308 - I should hope that the story does the rounds of all garages nationally so that they all know what they need to do to comply with their legal duties when carrying out repairs and servicing and thereby avoid losing legal challenges.
>>
What would happen though is that they'd either end up refusing to do work on cars without full service history (a bit like Mercedes do with their Mobilo cover - once it's gone it's gone) or they'd insist that everything potentially affected was replaced, ie new engine.
|
>> Bill Payer: Which law is that? >> >> As noted elsewhere, plus of couse, Ford is an American company and they're for ever being sued by their shareholders. >>
First, the OP's situation is in this country, not America. His service/repair contract has nothing to do with Ford of America.
Companies Act 2006 - extract below from ICAEW:
As a director, you must act in a way which you think is most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its shareholders. You need to consider a number of statutory factors, including the long-term consequence of decisions, your firm's reputation and the interests of other stakeholders, such as employees and the community.
3.1 The company is a separate legal entity from its directors, shareholders and employees.
The best interests of the company are not always the same as the best interests of the shareholders.
You must consider the interests of other stakeholders such as creditors and employees.
You must consider the long-term prospects of the company and its reputation.
All IMO as per
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=4&t=33...5
Edited by jbif on 08/01/2010 at 11:01
|
First the OP's situation is in this country not America. His service/repair contract has nothing to do with Ford of America.
The OP's issue has nothing to do with Ford at all, unless the dealership he went to is one of those owned by Ford UK Retail.
If Ford UK were involved then, while legally it would have nothing to do with Ford US, the company's direction certainly comes from there. Obviously not case by case, but warranty levels, goodwill process etc etc.
|
|
|
