Watchdog - interesting legal advice
Discussion
Did anyone see the watchdog program about Landrover and it's faulty bolt,causing oil pump issues which lead to engine failures?
Basically Landrover are legally obliged to recall and fix the engines F.O.C.
The solicitor recommended people who suffered this should group togther and get legal advice.
They mentioned that in England you have up to 6 years to claim for compenssation, no matter whether under warranty or not.
Hmm, has this been tried with Speed 6 owners?
Shoulnd't we all club together and force Wheeler's hand for a complete recall?
Apologies if this topic has been mentioned before...
Basically Landrover are legally obliged to recall and fix the engines F.O.C.
The solicitor recommended people who suffered this should group togther and get legal advice.
They mentioned that in England you have up to 6 years to claim for compenssation, no matter whether under warranty or not.
Hmm, has this been tried with Speed 6 owners?
Shoulnd't we all club together and force Wheeler's hand for a complete recall?
Apologies if this topic has been mentioned before...
salty, you should check out Dazzlers probs in the cerbera forum at the moment. I'm sure a pile of us would be up for doing something about it. Wonder if a letter to watchdog about TVR's would be worthwhile. Could get all the S6 Pistonheads boyz to sign it etc
Worth thinking about. I know if my engine guys that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless of course TVR repair it for free! Fat chance!
Cheers
Jamster
PS Dont agree with plotloss that it would take years. If it went to court then maybe but these things do usually get that far.
Worth thinking about. I know if my engine guys that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless of course TVR repair it for free! Fat chance!
Cheers
Jamster
PS Dont agree with plotloss that it would take years. If it went to court then maybe but these things do usually get that far.
Surely this all comes down to the Sale of Goods Act whereby something must be suitable for the purpose for which it is being sold.
As an example by buying a Speed Six powered car you have the right to assume that it will run without needing major work for what is deemed a reasonable amount of time.
What a reasonable amount of time is is open to debate but 10,000 miles cannot be justified as reasonable by anyone in my opinion.
All you need is a small percentage of owners to show that the problem is consistent.
TVR have two choices.
1. Admit that they expect no more than 10k from their engines or
2. Admit that this is unreasonable and repair any problems without charge.
Either way the customer wins.
As an example by buying a Speed Six powered car you have the right to assume that it will run without needing major work for what is deemed a reasonable amount of time.
What a reasonable amount of time is is open to debate but 10,000 miles cannot be justified as reasonable by anyone in my opinion.
All you need is a small percentage of owners to show that the problem is consistent.
TVR have two choices.
1. Admit that they expect no more than 10k from their engines or
2. Admit that this is unreasonable and repair any problems without charge.
Either way the customer wins.
matthewbinns said:
What a reasonable amount of time is is open to debate but 10,000 miles cannot be justified as reasonable by anyone in my opinion.
Actually - what is "reasonable" is not at all open to debate and is actually at the discretion of the magistrates when the case gets to court ... depending on your point of view this could be good or bad as the magistrate is not obliged to know anything about the realistic longevity of what they are deciding upon - in this case engines.
Phil
bassfiend said:
What a reasonable amount of time is is open to debate but 10,000 miles cannot be justified as reasonable by anyone in my opinion.
Actually - what is "reasonable" is not at all open to debate and is actually at the discretion of the magistrates when the case gets to court ... depending on your point of view this could be good or bad as the magistrate is not obliged to know anything about the realistic longevity of what they are deciding upon - in this case engines.
Phil
sorry to be pedantic but this isnt a matter that would be dealt with by magistrates.
Fish I have to say that your comment is misplaced and unfounded in fact. IMHO
My engine was recently rebuilt twice (about 10months and 4 months ago respectively)allegedly to fix all problems.
For the past 8 weeks it has been back to Blackpool for another engine rebuild.
Either they didn't fix what they say they had fixed in the first place
OR
There are still problems with the engine.
Having seen threads on recent cars engines expiring on allegedly later 'sorted' engines I know what I believe.
My engine was recently rebuilt twice (about 10months and 4 months ago respectively)allegedly to fix all problems.
For the past 8 weeks it has been back to Blackpool for another engine rebuild.
Either they didn't fix what they say they had fixed in the first place
OR
There are still problems with the engine.
Having seen threads on recent cars engines expiring on allegedly later 'sorted' engines I know what I believe.
jamster said:
salty, you should check out Dazzlers probs in the cerbera forum at the moment. I'm sure a pile of us would be up for doing something about it. Wonder if a letter to watchdog about TVR's would be worthwhile. Could get all the S6 Pistonheads boyz to sign it etc
Worth thinking about. I know if my engine guys that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless of course TVR repair it for free! Fat chance!
Cheers
Jamster
PS Dont agree with plotloss that it would take years. If it went to court then maybe but these things do usually get that far.
Yes and the accompanying publicity would wipe out the resale value of any TVR!!!!!!
>> Edited by p7ulg on Wednesday 14th April 16:46
So people are prepared to put up with this situation as long as theer is no publicity and it doesn't affect resale values.
Hmm remind me never to ask for our help in a crisis.
The main issue as I see it is the inconsistency that TVR apply to different customers. Soem get repairs for free other have to pay.
I have been lucky but that still doesn't mean I should stand back and not care about the way other customer's are treated.
Hmm remind me never to ask for our help in a crisis.
The main issue as I see it is the inconsistency that TVR apply to different customers. Soem get repairs for free other have to pay.
I have been lucky but that still doesn't mean I should stand back and not care about the way other customer's are treated.
shnozz said:
sorry to be pedantic but this isnt a matter that would be dealt with by magistrates.
It was when Wexham trading standards advised a customer of ours to take us to small claims court over it. :-(
A guy bought some kit of us which went "phut" after 18 months - we said it was out of warranty so they decided to have us.
Phil
Methanol said:
If the case were ever to reach the courts, it would not be difficult at all to prove 10,000 miles weren’t reasonable
Yes, but it would be impossible to prove that the engine had been run within TVRs guidelines relating to correctly warming up, operating temperatures, fluid levels etc etc. TVR might (not saying they would) claim that the engines that broke were the ones that were abused....
Just trying to play devil's advocate...
The reality is that TVR are manufacturing products which are not in synch with the prevailing consumer environment, either ito legislative compliance or customer expectations.
It's been said before but TVR product is probably no more or less 'reliable' today than 'exotics' of (even recent) yore...
The difference was that the sort of people who bought Ferraris et al, in, say, the 60s or 70s were simply untroubled by the tempremental nature of their thoroughbred - they simply accepted it and used the Range Rover or whatever else was littering the gravelled quadrangle whilst it was away.
The emergence of a relatively affluent middle class since the 1980s and the desire for that same exotic glamour without quite having the means to get something Maranellic or (until recently) Pagnellic, combined with a modern communications age driving a million and one car-based fantasies, meant that TVR enjoyed supreme media focus and many, including me, forgot that we were actually buying from a production base that may have had more in common with an Enzo line from a post-war context, rather than something uber tech and financed by one of the giants of the industry...
"Fit for the purpose?" By what definition? Which yardstick? A Speed Six developing problems 10,000 miles in 2002 is obviously not great but is it better or worse than a classic Muira actually setting on fire due to fundamental design lapses that simpky had "to be fettled?"
Emotional stuff and hugely anoying for the punters (like I said, I've been there) but ultimately, did not Enzo infamously hold contempt for his punters?
I'm not saying it's good or acceptable, just look at it in context.
A crusade against Wheeler's gruff diamond enterprise by some horrible little smarmchief legal sh1t would be wholly and entirely dreadful, although individual cases brought would seem perfectly logical where reasonable redress was not forthcoming.
The Sale of Goods Act was not the brainchild of a small volume, inspirational car bloke.
It's been said before but TVR product is probably no more or less 'reliable' today than 'exotics' of (even recent) yore...
The difference was that the sort of people who bought Ferraris et al, in, say, the 60s or 70s were simply untroubled by the tempremental nature of their thoroughbred - they simply accepted it and used the Range Rover or whatever else was littering the gravelled quadrangle whilst it was away.
The emergence of a relatively affluent middle class since the 1980s and the desire for that same exotic glamour without quite having the means to get something Maranellic or (until recently) Pagnellic, combined with a modern communications age driving a million and one car-based fantasies, meant that TVR enjoyed supreme media focus and many, including me, forgot that we were actually buying from a production base that may have had more in common with an Enzo line from a post-war context, rather than something uber tech and financed by one of the giants of the industry...
"Fit for the purpose?" By what definition? Which yardstick? A Speed Six developing problems 10,000 miles in 2002 is obviously not great but is it better or worse than a classic Muira actually setting on fire due to fundamental design lapses that simpky had "to be fettled?"
Emotional stuff and hugely anoying for the punters (like I said, I've been there) but ultimately, did not Enzo infamously hold contempt for his punters?
I'm not saying it's good or acceptable, just look at it in context.
A crusade against Wheeler's gruff diamond enterprise by some horrible little smarmchief legal sh1t would be wholly and entirely dreadful, although individual cases brought would seem perfectly logical where reasonable redress was not forthcoming.
The Sale of Goods Act was not the brainchild of a small volume, inspirational car bloke.
Podie said:
[tangent]
So if these are BMW engines (they were TD5's IIRC) then does it stop with Landie or Beemer? Or do Landie take it up with the Bavarians?
[/tangent]
Usually it follows the chain of supply. The Customer takes it up with LR and if there are costs involved, they are passed back down to BMW. Unless they have a 'warranty-sharing' agreement, in which case costs are split 50/50.
All parts supplied to LR (FoMoCo) have to be proven (by adequate testing) to have a life of 10yrs/150k miles. This means "Fit For Use" for that period too.
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff