Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Renault Espace 2.2dCi Major Engine Problem


devilcouple69
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3850 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi.

 

I'm after some advice. I have a 05 plate Renault Espace 2.2dCi Initiale.

 

Its just over its warranty by a couple of months and has only done 56k miles. I had it serviced as per schedule 10 days ago at a Nationwide Autocentre, prior to this has been serviced at Renault Dealer.

 

I have had no problems with the car other than faulty tyre pressure sensors.

 

I was driving the car back from Nottingham when the was a rattling sound coming from the front of the car, it sounded as if the exhaust had split or a hole in it. A couple of minutes later a warning message on the dash came up "Low oil pressure" then the oil light came on, as i pull off the road into a layby, the STOP light came on and lost all power to the engine.

 

When the RAC arrived the told me the conrod had gone through the the Engine. The car has now been at the Renault Garage for the past couple of days.

 

They're not sure what has caused the problem, as the engine had oil in it, it hadn't overheated or had been driven hard. They say it will cost £7250 for new engine. They're also saying that because the last service wasn't by a dealer Renault won't accept any liability.

 

Has anyone experienced a similar problem or had any dealing with Renault customer service. A diesel engine that's only done 56k miles shouldn't do this.

 

Help please as there's no way i can afford £7250. :(

 

Thanks

 

Simon

Edited by devilcouple69
Added info
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry to hear this, this is very typical of renault. Few questions:

 

How far out of the warranty period are you?

 

Was the last 'non dealer' service in or outside of the warranty period?

 

If it was inside the warranty period was OE parts used and was it serviced according to renault standards

 

If the the car was serviced inside the warranty period and you can prove that it was serviced by 'a competent person' i.e a vat registered garage using OE parts then you can try arguing you're covered under block exemption.

 

You'll have to fight them every step of the way and argue the toss, outside of that you'll have to hope for some goodwill or a contribution for a new engine.

 

I had this with Audi on an A6 V6TDi180 and it also threw a conrod out at42,000 miles and two months outside of warranty. I threatened legal action as the fault would of been inherent and the last service (again by a non franchised dealer) wouldn't of caused the failure.

 

You may be able to argue that in your case too. Sounds silly, but you may be able to pressure your insurance too, or contact your home insurer and tell them you want to use the liability insurance most insurers offer tosue renault, they'll also pressure renault cos they'll not want the bill either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

The car is only a couple of months outside of the warranty, although still inside the 60,000 miles. The service was carried outside of the warranty period and was carried out by Nationwide Autocentre's on there Major Service. See http://www.nationwideautocentres.co.uk/pdf/menu_service_schedule.pdf

 

They also claim on there website the following:

10 reasons to use Nationwide

 

Nationwide Autocentres are the leading UK MOT and car servicing specialist. See the top 10 reasons for choosing to service your car with us!

 

 

  1. AA audited service centres
  2. Huge savings on dealer prices
  3. Honest and accurate advice
  4. All parts are guaranteed for a minimum 12 months or 12,000 miles (whichever is sooner)
  5. Price Promise - we won’t be beaten
  6. Highly experienced, qualified technicians
  7. Use of the latest technology and equipment
  8. Having your car serviced with us will not invalidate your warranty
  9. We service all makes and models of cars
  10. Over 200 centres nationwide

See point 8 of there top 10. Surely this means that the service was carried to the same as renault standards.

 

I have spoken with the Renault Garage and they've told me that they are unable to really acertain whats caused the failure and without completely stripping the engine, which they don't want to do. They have told me that the turbo on the engine has failed also.

 

They have told me that they have spoken to Renault Customer Services and they are willing to contribute to the repair and have initially quoted a 20% contribution, but they are yet to discuss it with me direct. The Renault dealer has told me to tell them it was caused by failure of the Turbo.

 

I had a look at my fully comprehensive vehicle insurance policy with MoreThan and it doesn't cover vehicle repair due to mechanical or electrical failure.

 

I have bought the car through my company, but not sure if company insurance would have any effect.

 

The garage also said that they have NEVER seen this kind of failure in an engine with so few miles on.

 

Surely this indicates a fault with either the conrod itself or the turbo, although i'm not 100% sure turbo failure would necessarily cause such a catastrophic result. Either way both parts should last longer than 56,000 miles.

 

So not sure what next step will be. 20% is definitely insulting this rate will not be getting a renault again. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be tempted to quote SOGA at them, as 3 years(just over) is not a reasonable period of time for durability and fitness for purpose for such a major repair to occur. A conrod is not a common fault, and should not occur in this timescale.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sale Of Goods Act ;)

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I presume that there was some oil in the sump?

 

The rattling sounds like bearings going (or gone!) before they seized and it threw a conrod.

 

If there was no oil, how soon after the service was this? It could be that the oil filter or sump plug wasn't fully tightened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The oil level was fine, it was only change 10 days prior and the oil level check when you start the car said it was ok aswell. There was plenty of oil left in the engine even after there was a big hole in it.

 

The first thing the guy from the RAC did was check the oil level on the dipstick and it was showing a good level even after the incident.

 

The Renault garage can't find any problem that may have caused the conrod to go, other than the turbo has also blown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Update

 

I have finally had a call from Renault Customers Services. They asked me a few questions about why i bought a Renault & what happened prior to the incident.

 

They are telling me that the cause of the problem as far as they are concerned was catastrophic turbo failure which sucked the oil from the engine causing the conrod failure.

 

They also asked me what i expected from them with regards to a contribution from them.

 

I've had a look on a few forums and there is one on the Parker's website which is a very long thread on fault with the turbo on the dCi engine. Has anyone else had this problem.

 

I'm not holding out for much assistance, been two days since they've called me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you say you expected? I personally would have said you expected FULL contribution from them.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"They are telling me that the cause of the problem as far as they are concerned was catastrophic turbo failure which sucked the oil from the engine causing the conrod failure."

 

Having run many turbo diesel vans in the past and having this happen twice,my understanding of this kind of problem is that the turbo sucks up the oil from the engine and actually runs the engine on your oil and will keep going (you can't turn it off by the ignition!) until it has run the engine dry of oil.I'm no mechanic but surely if the the turbo failed and did this it would have emptied the engine of oil?.

I'd query this explanation with a qualified motor engineer as i reckon they're clutching at straws!.

PS - I own 2 Renaults at the moment,one is a 2003 van that my mechanic can't get the heater plugs out of because the bolts that hold them in have rusted away due to bad design and a 2002 Diesel Laguna that has just begun to lose water.....i can feel a change of manufacturer coming:).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Turbo failure on the 2.2dci espace is very very common and Renault know it.

 

We had 2 last year both with less than 60,000miles on them and the best deal renault offered was 50% towards the bill . The keycards are also a very big problem.

 

They are by far the worst vehicle for reliability.

 

I suspect the turbo broke up and deposited metal into the intake which would inturn go into the top of the engine thus causing catastrophic top end seizure and jamming the intake valves, the piston would then not make fullstroke and the conrod would have to keep moving and the only place it could go is outward and off the piston.

 

Tell Renault to strip the engine and find what caused the conrod to come through, you,ll find it was turbo failure , which means THEY are liable as the turbo should still be warrantied.

 

If you need other owners to make a statement advocating they had the exact same fault i can definately supply a number for 1 ex owner.

Edited by sickovit
Link to post
Share on other sites

As a mechanic in a non-franchised garage I have experienced a few problems with oil pressure relief valves in recent Renault turbo diesel engines. This causes insufficient oil flow to all parts of the engine and turbo. Usually the turbo is first to give up and the problem is remedied before engine damage occurs. However if you were cruising on the motorway you may not have noticed the turbo fail and have suffered the engine failure as well. Believe me Renault are only too aware of this fault and I'm quite sure would have done a recall were it not for the fact that the part seems to last just beyond the warranty. I know of several mechanics in similar positions to myself who will be only too willing to back up your claim that this is a known fault and is caused by an inherent fault. I doubt very much that an improperly closed valve would cause the problem as you suggest as in every engine I have ever worked on the valves are softer than conrods. I.e. the valve would bend rather than the conrod break. In very few engines you may shatter a piston

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had this happen to a Scenic I sold last year. The engine runs on and on, sucking all the oil up and running on that. You switch the ignition off and it keeps going until it blows!! Some people try and stall by putting in gear and releasing the clutch only to detonate the clutch/flywheel as well...........

 

I have a very very good contact at my local Renault garage and he tells me it is a massive problem on 1.9 and 2.2 DCi's. Renault are aware but don't really want to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi devilcouple69,

 

Have you got anywhere yet? Or have they settled? If not, I'll tell you what I did with my auto gearbox which packed up, although the Renault contact may not be still there. In brief though my warranty had run out, the muppets at Customer Care don't know anything about the Sale of Goods Act, and if they have said they will pay something, they actually know there is a problem. They offered 50% but ended up paying the lot.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some contributors say that turbo sucks up oil and engine runs on that? This being the case, you would notice an immediate loss of power and smoke belching from exhaust. Sorry to hear of Renault engine problems, the only good thing about their heavy trucks was the engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i have also had exactly the same problem, conrod through engine, thank god it wasnt at 80mph and only when i was coming off motorway, i had my kids with me. This all happend last night and i dont know what to do.

 

My car is a renault espace 2.2dci expresion, i didnt buy from renault direct but from an independent dealer who gave me a warranty for a year, upon checking it, its only a max 500 pound claim. What can i do ?? The car only has 32000 miles on it and is a 04 plate.

 

Would really like to know how you got on with your claim and any advise you can give, am i still able to go to renault even though i never got the car from them?

 

Please help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Simon - I've just had what sounds like exactly the same fault

 

I have a 03 plate Renault Grande Espace 2.2dCi Priviledge.

 

It's only done 64k miles. I have had problems with the faulty tyre pressure sensors as well but more importantly I had the same fault you describe with the 2.2dci engine.

 

I was driving the car to Bristol when a warning message on the dash came up firstly as "fuel injection system faulty" accompanied by a dramatic loss of power followed by a "Low oil pressure" then "low oil level" , as i pulled off the motorway onto the hard shoulder, the STOP light came on with "chargeing circuit fault".

The engine would subsequently not turn over to restart (suspect it was seized) and I needed to arrange recovery from the hard shoulder.

 

Further diagnostic analysis by a local garage guessed that at least one injector became faulty and has subsequently broke the associated piston and damaged the crank - new engine required was the diagnosis. I'm currently looking for a second hand or reconditioned engine at an estimated cost of £1750 + VAT + installation

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinson, very sorry to hear your dreadful story. can understand that your main priority is to get car back on road asap and as cheaply as poss. I can't however understand "Guessed" story about injector. even if nozzle had come off, it shouldnt have caused all that damage. Maybe a cracked piston, but crankshaft??? It's a pitty budget does not extend to engine strip down to see exactly what went wrong and full extent of damage. Could be interesting and maybe give indication on what to look out for in future. Hope you can get replacement engine OK, but may be scarce if this is wide problem. Breakers tend to know of these things and price used engines accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, but even if I do find a new engine the maximum the car is worth has been estimated at £3750, the car looks absolutely pristine - full Renault service history, Sat Nav, panaoramic sunroof, reversing sensors, xenon headlamps and alloy wheels etc, but at 64,000 miles its a throw away because the engine replacement far outweighs the cars book value - I could buy a newer one for less money -isn't this a ridiculous situation? I paid £32,000 for it less than 6 years ago!!This has got to be a design fault with the DCI 2.2 engine - hasn't it?

 

Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...