Audi S3 Snapped Cam Belt advice?
Discussion
Consumer Rights Act 2015. Any faults within the first 6 months must be repaired by the supplier, they have one chance to fix it and then you can demand a refund unless they can prove the fault is through miss use. Although this particular fault is past 6 months, there are multiple other faults inside the 6 months. Bearing this in mind and this faults proximity to the 6 month period, the supplier would have no chance in court.
Citizens advice have been following this all the way through and are strongly advising I ask to speak to their ADR, failing this I should take them to court.
Citizens advice have been following this all the way through and are strongly advising I ask to speak to their ADR, failing this I should take them to court.
The Consumer Rights Act said:
Faults, repairs and refunds
After 6 months
For faults that arise after six months the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time of delivery if you want to pursue a claim for repair or replacement.
In the case of the timing belt snapping, I would think it would be pretty hard to argue that this fault was present at the time of delivery.After 6 months
For faults that arise after six months the burden is on you to prove that the product was faulty at the time of delivery if you want to pursue a claim for repair or replacement.
As I have said, I have been on the phone and exchanging emails with citizens advise and the consumer help line. The law is pretty straight forward on the sale of used cars.
The law states that any goods sold by a trade must be of satisfactory quality and last and reasonable and mount of time. In terms of used cars this translates to perception of what an normal person would expect from a car of that make, mileage, age, cost etc...
Would anyway here claim that it is reasonable to assume that after paying 17495 for a 2011 29k miles audi S3 for within 6 months anyways 1 week the air intake to snap, coils fail, gearbox break and then cam chain snapped? There is no andrgument that this car has lasted andrgument reasonable amount of time or that it was of satisfactory quality.
The law states that any goods sold by a trade must be of satisfactory quality and last and reasonable and mount of time. In terms of used cars this translates to perception of what an normal person would expect from a car of that make, mileage, age, cost etc...
Would anyway here claim that it is reasonable to assume that after paying 17495 for a 2011 29k miles audi S3 for within 6 months anyways 1 week the air intake to snap, coils fail, gearbox break and then cam chain snapped? There is no andrgument that this car has lasted andrgument reasonable amount of time or that it was of satisfactory quality.
gp3000000 said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
If it's the EA888 engine, which it should be in an 11 plate, it doesn't have a belt. It's chain only.
Don't know where you got this from - all the S3 06-14 engines have a belt and chain. Also a balancer chain in the sump.Adamb19 said:
As I have said, I have been on the phone and exchanging emails with citizens advise and the consumer help line. The law is pretty straight forward on the sale of used cars.
No. It isn't.Adamb19 said:
The law states that any goods sold by a trade must be of satisfactory quality and last and reasonable and mount of time. In terms of used cars this translates to perception of what an normal person would expect from a car of that make, mileage, age, cost etc...
The key words are satisfactory, reasonable and normal. Weasel words used by lawmakers so that lawyers can earn a living arguing about what they mean.Adamb19 said:
Would anyway here claim that it is reasonable to assume that after paying 17495 for a 2011 29k miles audi S3 for within 6 months anyways 1 week the air intake to snap, coils fail, gearbox break and then cam chain snapped? There is no andrgument that this car has lasted andrgument reasonable amount of time or that it was of satisfactory quality.
Presumably you agreed to have the other faults fixed, therefore they are no longer present and not relevant to any court case. The CA are not engineers either and your initial concern that the recently replaced belt had snapped has probably confused them rather. Chains can break, your car is 5 years old and you just have a very unfortunate occurrence which no-one could have foreseen.No they did not fix all the other faults which is partly why I have them. They agreed to replace the air intake but failed to ever deliver the part, they did not assist in the replacement of the coil, I had to do this myself and pay for the car to be transported 50 miles and then the gearbox broke which they did fix however they failed to provide any details of what work was done on the car or any receipt for it.
You are correct that the CA are not mechanics which is why I have an independent evaluation of the car by an audi specialist who provided a report stating the fault is due to defect and not missuse.
You are correct that the CA are not mechanics which is why I have an independent evaluation of the car by an audi specialist who provided a report stating the fault is due to defect and not missuse.
V8RX7 said:
Adamb19 said:
My garage to told me they could get a reconditioned engine for 1500
Take a look on Ebay and see what £1500 gets you.I really wouldn't do it.
Low mileage engines for this car (CDL or BHZ as previously mentioned) are £2K minimum and usually + ancillaries.
A lot of scene boys hoover them up for old Golfs which drives the price up.
Just to point out - coils failing is wear and tear, and in some circumstances can be put down to how the car has been driven.
Also your understanding of the CRA is a bit off - faults are not automatically assumed to have been there at point of purchase however regarding the timing issue alone, if they told you the chain has been changed when you bought the car then I cannot see them being able to wriggle out of it legally. If you were not told the chain had been replaced AND you paid under market value (I have no idea whether what you paid is market value or not) then even taking into account the CRA, the garage could escape paying for it.
Don't bother with the CAB - they are as much use as a chocolate teapot and are unpaid volunteers, in many cases with no knowledge or qualifications.
Also your understanding of the CRA is a bit off - faults are not automatically assumed to have been there at point of purchase however regarding the timing issue alone, if they told you the chain has been changed when you bought the car then I cannot see them being able to wriggle out of it legally. If you were not told the chain had been replaced AND you paid under market value (I have no idea whether what you paid is market value or not) then even taking into account the CRA, the garage could escape paying for it.
Don't bother with the CAB - they are as much use as a chocolate teapot and are unpaid volunteers, in many cases with no knowledge or qualifications.
Adam, horrible situation and probably very bad luck that it didn't happen much earlier (inside 3 months ideally).
Anyway, now isn't the time to be trying to save a few quid as you could end up wasting hours and hours on a lost cause, or possibly missing some key advice on how to approach a claim. I'd really bin of the CAB and go and take some real legal advice - and when you're getting legal advice, you shouldn't be selling your view of things, just giving an accurate description of what's happened.
As I said, very unfortunate situation and you have my sympathy.
Anyway, now isn't the time to be trying to save a few quid as you could end up wasting hours and hours on a lost cause, or possibly missing some key advice on how to approach a claim. I'd really bin of the CAB and go and take some real legal advice - and when you're getting legal advice, you shouldn't be selling your view of things, just giving an accurate description of what's happened.
As I said, very unfortunate situation and you have my sympathy.
I've advised both customers and dealers in these situations before from a mechanics point of view. In this case, just focusing on the snapped timing chain, I would advise that the chain is designed to last the life of the car, therefore the selling garage were not at fault for the issue.
How a judge see's it on any particular day though is anyone's guess. At the end of the day they are not experts in the field.
good luck, I hope you get a result you're happy with!
How a judge see's it on any particular day though is anyone's guess. At the end of the day they are not experts in the field.
good luck, I hope you get a result you're happy with!
Andyjc86 said:
I've advised both customers and dealers in these situations before from a mechanics point of view. In this case, just focusing on the snapped timing chain, I would advise that the chain is designed to last the life of the car, therefore the selling garage were not at fault for the issue.
How a judge see's it on any particular day though is anyone's guess. At the end of the day they are not experts in the field.
good luck, I hope you get a result you're happy with!
The problem is that the Law seems to suggest if the car was faulty when sold to the Purchaser then the Garage is liable and clearly the car was faulty.How a judge see's it on any particular day though is anyone's guess. At the end of the day they are not experts in the field.
good luck, I hope you get a result you're happy with!
The Garage would then have to sue Audi on a similar basis (good luck with that).
TBH I wish it was easier to hold Manufacturers liable in these cases instead of pleading for a goodwill gesture.
A car shouldn't suffer a failure such as this until at least 150k assuming service schedules have been followed.
V8RX7 said:
The problem is that the Law seems to suggest if the car was faulty when sold to the Purchaser then the Garage is liable and clearly the car was faulty.
The Garage would then have to sue Audi on a similar basis (good luck with that).
TBH I wish it was easier to hold Manufacturers liable in these cases instead of pleading for a goodwill gesture.
A car shouldn't suffer a failure such as this until at least 150k assuming service schedules have been followed.
You must be gutted OP, but it doesn't seem quite right that in the first instance your recourse is against the supplying dealer even though the underlying fault seems to lie with VAG.The Garage would then have to sue Audi on a similar basis (good luck with that).
TBH I wish it was easier to hold Manufacturers liable in these cases instead of pleading for a goodwill gesture.
A car shouldn't suffer a failure such as this until at least 150k assuming service schedules have been followed.
If you can't get legal aid I hope you have some legal expenses insurance!
Good luck.
V8RX7 said:
TBH I wish it was easier to hold Manufacturers liable in these cases instead of pleading for a goodwill gesture.
A car shouldn't suffer a failure such as this until at least 150k assuming service schedules have been followed.
Trouble is you know what warranty you are getting at the point of buying. If you want longer than the standard, there are manufacturers you can go to (7 years always stands out to me) And off course you can extend the warranty if you wish.A car shouldn't suffer a failure such as this until at least 150k assuming service schedules have been followed.
I understand your point and it's very frustrating to have a major failure like this. But we do know the risks and limits when we buy.
V8RX7 said:
The problem is that the Law seems to suggest if the car was faulty when sold to the Purchaser then the Garage is liable and clearly the car was faulty.
That is correct for cars less then 6 months old, but even then it's not as clear cut as that. I've got dealers out of paying for faults after a few months.As the car was over 6 months old when it happened, it's the customer who has to prove it was faulty at the time of sale. As the car was seemingly running fine then, then I would suggest it was.
It's a s
t situation for the OP, this could have happened after 1 week, or 2 years. It's just one of those things.Edited by Andyjc86 on Thursday 8th December 12:01
It sucks. But as some of you have pointed out if we look at the chain on its own then I'd have a weak case, but when you factor in a broken air intake and gearbox as well it starts to paint a picture that there were underlying issues with this vehicle at the point of sale. It just takes time for these issues to manifest and show themselves.
And the reason I have gone for dealership is because from a legal stand point it was them who supplied the car, they are the trader and therefore it is then who are liable. Seems daft but that's the way it works.
No real modifications or remap and has full services history with regular services and all car fluids were Aretha correct level. I contacted audi at the end of November and they never got back to me.
And the reason I have gone for dealership is because from a legal stand point it was them who supplied the car, they are the trader and therefore it is then who are liable. Seems daft but that's the way it works.
No real modifications or remap and has full services history with regular services and all car fluids were Aretha correct level. I contacted audi at the end of November and they never got back to me.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff