996 GT3 owner in the mail today
Discussion
Sorry if its a re-post.
Sounds like a strange story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384842/Po...
Sounds like a strange story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2384842/Po...
Dodgy source but I think this is a fair summary.
Man buys GT3 from Porsche Centre Bolton. Man notices some faults with the car and returns it to OPC. Some work is done on the engine and steering etc. Man drives car and the engine fails.
Man blames shoddy workmanship (e.g. tyres fitted incorrectly) but OPC says that the engine failure is due to RR2 over-revs.
Man unhappy and sues OPC for £40k. OPC makes Part 36 offer of £2,500 . Man refuses offer.
Cases proceeds to trial and man loses court case save for the part of his case about steering and tyres. Man must pay his own legal fees plus those of his opponent because the he didn't beat the Part 36 offer. Man applies for permission to appeal but this is refused.
Man buys GT3 from Porsche Centre Bolton. Man notices some faults with the car and returns it to OPC. Some work is done on the engine and steering etc. Man drives car and the engine fails.
Man blames shoddy workmanship (e.g. tyres fitted incorrectly) but OPC says that the engine failure is due to RR2 over-revs.
Man unhappy and sues OPC for £40k. OPC makes Part 36 offer of £2,500 . Man refuses offer.
Cases proceeds to trial and man loses court case save for the part of his case about steering and tyres. Man must pay his own legal fees plus those of his opponent because the he didn't beat the Part 36 offer. Man applies for permission to appeal but this is refused.
It's a bit odd and smacks of someone not doing their research first, plus:
- An OPC car would have a 2 year warranty - I know that the chronology isn't really all there, but how come he went to another garage rather than back to the OPC, assuming the car was still in the warranty period?
- Not sure how competent the other garage were, given that they found an incorrectly fitted throttle cable...on a drive-by-wire car.
- Bit of a plonker paying out for work 'assuming he'd get the money back from the warranty' Eh?
My advice would have been don't embark on a very expensive legal journey without pretty good proof that the engine failure was covered by the warranty or otherwise due to some act or omission on the part of the OPC. If there were RR2 over-revs before the engine failure then what evidence do we have about how that happened? If it's driver error then we're f
ked.
ked. agtlaw said:
Dodgy source but I think this is a fair summary.
Man buys GT3 from Porsche Centre Bolton. Man notices some faults with the car and returns it to OPC. Some work is done on the engine and steering etc. Man drives car and the engine fails.
Man blames shoddy workmanship (e.g. tyres fitted incorrectly) but OPC says that the engine failure is due to RR2 over-revs.
Man unhappy and sues OPC for £40k. OPC makes Part 36 offer of £2,500 . Man refuses offer.
Cases proceeds to trial and man loses court case save for the part of his case about steering and tyres. Man must pay his own legal fees plus those of his opponent because the he didn't beat the Part 36 offer. Man applies for permission to appeal but this is refused.
Did the article mention RR2 activity?? Man buys GT3 from Porsche Centre Bolton. Man notices some faults with the car and returns it to OPC. Some work is done on the engine and steering etc. Man drives car and the engine fails.
Man blames shoddy workmanship (e.g. tyres fitted incorrectly) but OPC says that the engine failure is due to RR2 over-revs.
Man unhappy and sues OPC for £40k. OPC makes Part 36 offer of £2,500 . Man refuses offer.
Cases proceeds to trial and man loses court case save for the part of his case about steering and tyres. Man must pay his own legal fees plus those of his opponent because the he didn't beat the Part 36 offer. Man applies for permission to appeal but this is refused.
lotus211 said:
Did the article mention RR2 activity??
Not in those words because a typical reader wouldn't understand that, but it says 'Porsche's lawyers claim that the engine failed when he overrevved it'.If that was the case, then the garage should have made sure that the repair was going to be covered before carrying out the work.
Edited by ChipsAndCheese on Monday 5th August 16:58
Tyres on the wrong way round and throttle cable not connected to engine properly... doesn't exactly leave a nice taste when apparently this part is undisputed but they are claiming the engine they rebuilt failed from "over revving".
If they can't put the tyres on the right way round what else have they got wrong?
If they can't put the tyres on the right way round what else have they got wrong?
barchetta_boy said:
If they can't put the tyres on the right way round what else have they got wrong?
The tyre bloke is incompetent. This is of no relevance to the engine bloke. It's an unfortunate situation - the shop website is down - and I wouldn't be surprised if his GT3 was on the market soon.
Edited by agtlaw on Monday 5th August 17:25
agtlaw said:
The tyre bloke is incompetent. This is of no relevance to the engine bloke.
It's an unfortunate situation - the shop website is down - and I wouldn't be surprised if his GT3 was on the market soon.
If the tyres were fitted by the OPC then not only the tyre bloke but the technician signing the car off and the service manager are incompetent.It's an unfortunate situation - the shop website is down - and I wouldn't be surprised if his GT3 was on the market soon.
Edited by agtlaw on Monday 5th August 17:25
red_slr said:
Unless he bought the car quite a few years ago I dont think it would have been under warranty as its over 9 years old?
Or did they give him an aftermarket warranty?
I was always under the impression a main dealer would not sell anything over 8 years old?
He bought the car 2006/7 IIRC..Or did they give him an aftermarket warranty?
I was always under the impression a main dealer would not sell anything over 8 years old?
So my understanding is that this guy done nothing wrong and had a warranty to cover hes car. When the engine popped he quite rightly went to porsche who pointed to over revs. The guy then pointed out that they sold him a warranty with these issues (including the RR issues?) so therefore should be covered or at least they should have not taken hes money to start with. They refuse based on the size of the bill so offer a Goodwill Gesture which on the face of it seems an insult but on the basis they offered something, albeit a derisory amount, they have fulfilled their warranty obligations therefore he should have taken the gesture money and run so he wears the court costs of all concerned.
?????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????
Nothing to add as I don't know the ins and outs but I feel for the guy, that's for sure! That is an awful lot of money for someone to have to find. I hope his business survives and that he eventually gets back on his feet from this.
Is this the black Mk1 that was for sale in the classifieds for a long time and is now at Hamilton Grays? (If they are the same car, which I believe they are).
Is this the black Mk1 that was for sale in the classifieds for a long time and is now at Hamilton Grays? (If they are the same car, which I believe they are).
Dan911 said:
marky911 said:
Is this the black Mk1 that was for sale in the classifieds for a long time and is now at Hamilton Grays? (If they are the same car, which I believe they are).
I dont think they are.. The pic from the news paper shows cloth buckets, but the one for sale has leather! Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff