Discussion
well ive just got my car back from having the old marrelli ecu ripped out and the mbe put in.i didnt listen to the good folk on her regarding this problem and carried on regardless trying to believe the marrelli was a good unit.i find it a real traversty that the factory have got away with this,when i rang the factory they were amused and amazed my unit was still functional.amused they might be but when i asked what they could do for me it was more of" stuff you mate tough ti??y"
I said this before ( and been shot down ) but I think can't see why it's not a matter for trading standards. Goods have to be fit for purpose for up to 7 years after sale, regardless of warranties etc. An ECU is not a serviceable part, it does not have an expected life. If they have all failed then it was clearly not fit for purpose.
mgbond said:
art411y said:
Gadgeroonie said:
were did you take it - how much for the mbe fitted ?
hi gadge .it was 500pounds plus partsBondy
Proving this sort of thing is very difficult. Put it down as a bad experience and a lesson in Noble's customer care (or lack of it). TVR were just the same.
Im currently changing the MBE for something easier (read cheaper) to remap. The new unit should work out at about £1000 plus fitting and that will include a Noble specific adapter loom.
Im currently changing the MBE for something easier (read cheaper) to remap. The new unit should work out at about £1000 plus fitting and that will include a Noble specific adapter loom.
Edited by Biggriff on Tuesday 12th May 09:47
snuffy said:
I said this before ( and been shot down ) but I think can't see why it's not a matter for trading standards. Goods have to be fit for purpose for up to 7 years after sale, regardless of warranties etc. An ECU is not a serviceable part, it does not have an expected life. If they have all failed then it was clearly not fit for purpose.
Couldn't agree more. I was told told to shut up and live with it when mine went a year ago. When asked for advice the factory were not particularly helpful. I now have an after market Haltech, which is the same as Bondy's and Rob in Guildford. All 2.5's. Good luck Arty and Bigriff. 'twill be interseting to see how thee do!
Biggriff said:
Cant say at the moment. Been asked to keep my mouth shut for once....!
Just got fed up with £450+ every time for an MBE remap
sorry biggriff but carnt understand why so much for a remap?.phil at g&g seems to think its approx 2hrs on the rollers .so my quess it would be max 200 poundsJust got fed up with £450+ every time for an MBE remap
snuffy said:
I said this before ( and been shot down ) but I think can't see why it's not a matter for trading standards. Goods have to be fit for purpose for up to 7 years after sale, regardless of warranties etc. An ECU is not a serviceable part, it does not have an expected life. If they have all failed then it was clearly not fit for purpose.
Not quite.People confuse the 6 year limit for starting proceedings with the statutory requirement that goods "must be fit for the purpose intended and be durable".
This was clarified in the somewhat famous case about a TV retailer that claimed that a TV with only one year warranty was acceptable. IIRC in that judgement the judge said that it was perfectly reasonable today to expect a TV to last for many more years than just one, and hence a claim under the SoG&S act was upheld because it was deemed that the durability of a TV should be much more than one year.
In this case I'd suggest that you'd have an exceptionally hard time convincing a judge that it was reasonable to expect a small run, hand built, specalist sports car should be expected to last without fault for 5 years. You can of course try, but if you do I'd take some serious professional advice first.
It's all clearly outlined here under the "durability" section for the 15/16 KS4 supporting material from Trading Standards.
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/northsomerset/c...
Finally, please always note that the seller (if commercial) is who your contract is with, and hence who you have recourse against, and not the manufacturer.
J
joust said:
In this case I'd suggest that you'd have an exceptionally hard time convincing a judge that it was reasonable to expect a small run, hand built, specialist sports car should be expected to last without fault for 5 years. You can of course try, but if you do I'd take some serious professional advice first.
J
As I understand it, it's not any fault, it's a major fault. So, if the door handle falls off after a couple of years then, well, that's a minor fault that could be expected. But if a major component fails then that's a different matter. Something major like the ECU should not fail ( and since it appears that the ones fitted to the GTO have all failed then it's clearly a design fault and it's not fit for purpose ). J
As another car related example, Lotus refitted the cylinder liners in all V8s because they leaked. It was down to the glue used. It was not that a few were faulty, they all were.
Noble might well be selling hand built sports cars but they were still charging £50,000 a pop. So my arguement to a court would be : Is it reasonable to buy a £50k car and expect a major system component to fail ? I dont think it is.
snuffy said:
joust said:
In this case I'd suggest that you'd have an exceptionally hard time convincing a judge that it was reasonable to expect a small run, hand built, specialist sports car should be expected to last without fault for 5 years. You can of course try, but if you do I'd take some serious professional advice first.
J
As I understand it, it's not any fault, it's a major fault. So, if the door handle falls off after a couple of years then, well, that's a minor fault that could be expected. But if a major component fails then that's a different matter. Something major like the ECU should not fail ( and since it appears that the ones fitted to the GTO have all failed then it's clearly a design fault and it's not fit for purpose ). J
As another car related example, Lotus refitted the cylinder liners in all V8s because they leaked. It was down to the glue used. It was not that a few were faulty, they all were.
Noble might well be selling hand built sports cars but they were still charging £50,000 a pop. So my arguement to a court would be : Is it reasonable to buy a £50k car and expect a major system component to fail ? I dont think it is.
The comparison with Lotus is somewhat moot. Lotus produce, and did produce 1000s of cars over many 10's of years. Noble produced a few hundred cars over a few years.
You might get lucky on a judge determinining it was reasonable for the ECU of the first 26 cars of a totally unknown, with previously only <10 cars of a wholly unrealted model, car from a solely 'niche' car manufacturer to last. Along with the one they "did" replace, there is a literny of stuff on the Elise that they didn't that cost owners (like me) thousands to sort out (shagged suspension due to the 'design fault' of upside down shocks anyone?????).
Also, please remember that unless you bought the car from new direct from the factory then your contract in law is nothing to do with Noble, it's from the person that sold it. If that's a private owner you are stuffed, and even if it's from a dealer if they can show even reasonable doubt they told you it was from "Noble", that well (un)known mass maufacturer you are going IMHO to have a horrid time.
Still, it's only a few £10s to lodge the inital claim on-line nowdays, but be prepared for a cost bill far in excess of the cost of replacing it if you do persue it.
So, if you feel you want to take it to court you have little to lose (apart from a big bill for costs if you do lose). Assuming you file it correct against the person you bought the car off, keep us all informed of how you do (although I'm guessing as you've already got/getting it replaced from your first post you've decided against that?).
J
Edited by joust on Monday 18th May 22:51
If your claim is for less than 5k then it should be allocated to the small claim track rather than fast or multi track which takes away the risk of getting a costs order against you if you lose. It also means that you wouldn't be entitled to costs if you win.
Might be worth a punt if you fancy doing it all yourself and is probably the only way in which a claim of this level could be pursued and still comply with the proportionality principals.
worty
Might be worth a punt if you fancy doing it all yourself and is probably the only way in which a claim of this level could be pursued and still comply with the proportionality principals.
worty
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff