Major fault- Dealer saying write off

[popeyewhite]

Hugo Stiglitz said:

Get a second professional opinion. It'll be worth trailering.

This, get it independently checked asap.

[CorradoTDI]

Well worth googling the reg and checking the car on something like Car Vertical...

You could also contact the previous owner if pos as you may find the chopped in in for a reason.

Lots of cars have been flooded over the last couple of years in the UK and it's one of the reasons that insurance premiums have shot up - my guess is that this can had some sort of water contact before getting traded-in. I can't see a 2019 premium car having a light full of water from just condensation, has to be either flooded or a poor repair.

[darreni]

CorradoTDI said:

Well worth googling the reg and checking the car on something like Car Vertical...

You could also contact the previous owner if pos as you may find the chopped in in for a reason.

Lots of cars have been flooded over the last couple of years in the UK and it's one of the reasons that insurance premiums have shot up - my guess is that this can had some sort of water contact before getting traded-in. I can't see a 2019 premium car having a light full of water from just condensation, has to be either flooded or a poor repair.

There may also be a reason why a Volvo main dealer is selling a volvo with a third party warranty - maybe the car is not up to AUC standards.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Agree it was only just over 3yrs old when sold to the OP/relly

[fourstardan]

The Dealer is just palming you off and politely recommending to chance it with the insurers.

But what winds me up is why should insurers pay for this?

I'd be raising a case with the Motor Ombudsman and pursuing with Volvo UK until they come back to you. Along with getting a second opinion from someone else.

Sounds pretty disgusting, a Volvo would be subjected to 3 months of harsh winters in it's homeland...

Have you seen other owners experiencing the same problem?

[ClaphamGT3]

darreni said:

There may also be a reason why a Volvo main dealer is selling a volvo with a third party warranty - maybe the car is not up to AUC standards.

All Volvo Selekt warranties are 3rd party, provided by Santander iirc

[M11rph]

If it has a dashcam, pull the SD card out and review the footage.

Water ingress from driving through a stream would understandably not be covered. However, if it is normal uk winter driving conditions then I'd argue that even if the catastophic failure is due to water ingress then the primary cause is due to failure/fault with a component which has allowed that water ingress.

[Ninja59]

Extended warranties for Volvo are Car Care Plan, they don't cover water ingress. Hence the issue.

[darreni]

Ninja59 said:

Extended warranties for Volvo are Car Care Plan, they don't cover water ingress. Hence the issue.

Ah, right.

[KungFuPanda]

I’m not sure why people are suggesting going to the insurers for this? There is no suggestion that the OP has driven through deep water or done anything negligent so why would his insurer bail him out. Similarly if the previous owner did flood the car, why would the OP’s insurer payout when they weren’t on cover at the time the damage occurred?

[freedman]

Ok, update this morning

E mail from the dealer

Please find below confirmation of issue found with your Volvo.


No estimate to repair, nothing, but the suggestion to report to insurers suggests to me they are going to claim it has been caused by the current owner. Carpets were not wet to the touch on purchase or the last time they got in the car.

I’m convinced it’s an issue that existed on purchase (the water issue) and it has finally caused an issue

“Investigated EML light on and park brake fault.
Various codes stored relating to control units, checked control units and found NSF and NSR footwells wet and dirty water found when carpets lifted and Control unit soaked and shorting out.
Due to water found inside vehicle insurance inspection recommended.”

[Monkeylegend]

freedman said:

No estimate to repair, nothing, but the suggestion to report to insurers suggests to me they are going to claim it has been caused by the current owner. Carpets were not wet to the touch on purchase or the last time they got in the car.

I’m convinced it’s an issue that existed on purchase (the water issue) and it has finally caused an issue

Unless you had an independent inspection confirming that at the time of purchase you really have no way of proving it was a pre-existing fault though and they will argue that if you knew the carpets were wet and there was water ingress, why did you not take it back before the fault occurred

Edited by Monkeylegend on Saturday 23 December 11:15

[K is King]

Water damage itself isn't a cause of failure. It is an effect unless that is if vehicle has specifically been driven through water that exceeds the manufacturers stated maximum wading depth.

Otherwise for water to be present inside the the vehicle or inside electrical modules then something else has failed - i.e. the root cause.

Things like failed door seals, bulkhead pass throughs, blanking grommets in unused holes, seals in electrical connectors, windscreen seal etc etc are prime examples.

[DodgyGeezer]

freedman said:

Ok, update this morning

E mail from the dealer

Please find below confirmation of issue found with your Volvo.


No estimate to repair, nothing, but the suggestion to report to insurers suggests to me they are going to claim it has been caused by the current owner. Carpets were not wet to the touch on purchase or the last time they got in the car.

I’m convinced it’s an issue that existed on purchase (the water issue) and it has finally caused an issue

“Investigated EML light on and park brake fault.
Various codes stored relating to control units, checked control units and found NSF and NSR footwells wet and dirty water found when carpets lifted and Control unit soaked and shorting out.
Due to water found inside vehicle insurance inspection recommended.”

'carpet not wet to touch' means nothing - and they know it! The amount of crud that the underlay can hold is staggering

[sugerbear]

Monkeylegend said:

freedman said:

No estimate to repair, nothing, but the suggestion to report to insurers suggests to me they are going to claim it has been caused by the current owner. Carpets were not wet to the touch on purchase or the last time they got in the car.

I’m convinced it’s an issue that existed on purchase (the water issue) and it has finally caused an issue

Unless you had an independent inspection confirming that at the time of purchase you really have no way of proving it was a pre-existing fault though and they will argue that if you knew the carpets were wet and there was water ingress, why did you not take it back before the fault occurred

Edited by Monkeylegend on Saturday 23 December 11:15

Its down to the dealer to prove that the fault present when the car was sold, not for the buyer.

I would be sending a formal letter to the finance company. They own the car and are in a srronger a position to resolve otherwise they have to give you your money back

[Canon_Fodder]

So it seems that the issue is that the the garage think the OP's mate has driven it through a flood.

It really needs an expert indy inspection to try to refute that

[freedman]

Monkeylegend said:

Unless you had an independent inspection confirming that at the time of purchase you really have no way of proving it was a pre-existing fault though and they will argue that if you knew the carpets were wet and there was water ingress, why did you not take it back before the fault occurred

Edited by Monkeylegend on Saturday 23 December 11:15

The carpets weren’t wet on purchase, and were not wet to touch even the day before I’m told

[freedman]

Seeing as they are saying both front and rear footwells are wet (I’ve no idea how wet, as I’ve not seen the car since it went in) and that the rear light was replaced on purchase due to being full of water, I’m confident the water ingress issue was present on purchase.

There is an added issue that the car was purchased from Newcastle, but he lives in Kent, and the car is at a local Volvo dealer

The rear light issue was noticed when the car was delivered, and Newcastle agreed to replacing the light (this was not just full of water, but causing the lights to flicker at the time, also)

Service agent at local dealer has just mailed and referred to his manager, I’m assuming the dealer principle, though I think this should really be an issue for Newcastle.

[imagineifyeswill]

This sounds exactly like the problem that happens with Ford Focus,s, there are louvred air pressure reducing flaps behind the rear bumper corners, without these it would be difficult to close the doors, the flapa themselves are angled outwards but the surround seals to the body leak filling the rear voids with water.
Once the voids have filled with water the action of braking and accelerating cause the water to slosh under the boot carpets and then run forwars under the carpets filling the footwells with water. As Volvo were Ford owned for a few years its quite possible they have the same arrangement.

[normalbloke]

imagineifyeswill said:

This sounds exactly like the problem that happens with Ford Focus,s, there are louvred air pressure reducing flaps behind the rear bumper corners, without these it would be difficult to close the doors, the flapa themselves are angled outwards but the surround seals to the body leak filling the rear voids with water.
Once the voids have filled with water the action of braking and accelerating cause the water to slosh under the boot carpets and then run forwars under the carpets filling the footwells with water. As Volvo were Ford owned for a few years its quite possible they have the same arrangement.

They’re called slam vents. Also a very well known issue on the layer Golfs, although these also let water in behind the light seals and the reversing camera. Ironic thing is, the revised parts to ‘solve’ the problem don’t.