This is quite easy if handled correctly. You need to confirm it is the head gasket at fault. If it is a genuine Land Rover part/kit then the customer needs to book it in at the nearest dealer for them to repair under a parts warranty claim subject to their assessment of the fault condition and cause. The problem that will possibly arise is if the owner has driven and ruined the engine. You will need to support the customer with a copy of the invoice you received from the LR dealer who supplied it. Who is the nearest dealer?

What Conniff points out is correct but bare in mind that the dealers responsibility is only to replace the faulty one, not all 4 as the repairing garage suggest. Further these injectors are available far cheaper, the £300 a piece would be the ford dealer cost and OEM standard compatible parts are available. The bolt missing from the turbo pipe is somewhat nebulous and you'd have to describe exactly what the Turbo leak is. What year, mileage and price paid for the C Max as this would also be relevant should you decide to pursuit as an often overlooked fact of SOGA is that it is based on this. e.g. if the car has around 100K miles the dealer could argue that this is normal wear and tear and if done properly would probably win if it went to court. SOGA does not give you the right to demand that the car should behave like new or that in the case of a failure it should be returned to new condition.

Thought as much as a miss fuel usually makes itself very apparent on a modern diesel usually makes itself apparent within a few miles especially with the amount you put in. Again out of interest what car and what year?

Indeed Scania and VW/Audi suffer from it on a regular basis I hear. It's quite a complex problem when you drill down on it but the data shows it all so I'm not surprised. As pointed out the Tsunami had a major effect on car and parts supply which has led to a total re-think on sourcing of parts strategy which no manufacturer is fully over yet. The Japanese producers were particularly hard hit and it may be in this instance this is a knock on effect filtering down and only just starting to show. It's also very unusual to have a 6 or 7 year old car still in the dealer network. I think it's a case of sorry that's the way it is at the moment hampered by the fact it's a uk spec car operating in what is deemed to be from the manufacturers point of view an overseas market. Believe me...the EU is not what it seems as regards making cars!!!

In a nut shell, probably none. Dealers are under contract to only fit genuine parts and can lose the franchise if found to be acting otherwise. There are occasions when this happens and it depends on the actual market the car is sold in not necessarily the EU as a whole. For example a UK spec car might not have the same specification as a French version and a French version might not be the same as a German version and a German version will certainly not be the same as a Chinese version. I've been in a similar situation where a UK customer broke down in Spain and I had to fly a part to the dealer in Spain. That is not all however. Every now and again manufacturers experience parts supply shortages due to an unforeseen run on a part and the older the car gets the more likely this is to happen as the aftermarket steps in with regards servicing and spares supply. Parts supply can also be frustrated by events outside of their control such as the Tsunami in Japan two or three years ago. Many companies are still recovering from this. It might be that one particular part of a fuel pump for example which is critical to the build might be on reduced availability and this is still going on world wide as it can take two to three years to resource and re-validate that actual component. In the UK most manufacturers have a contingency in place where if they know of a part is going on long term back order (usually 6 weeks or more) and will supply a replacement vehicle of some sort but they are not obliged to and they certainly won't do it for a vehicle stuck abroad. This does not necessarily apply to other European countries either as the National Sales Company for a particular brand is not always owned by the manufacturer. What could have happened in a ideal world is that the French dealer could have sent the pump for repair to an approved agent, i.e. if it's a Denso pump, then it could have gone to any Denso repair centre in Europe but the warranty supplied would not have been the same as a Mitsubishi genuine used part. You mention that Mitsubishi France have offered some sort of compensation so I'd be inclined to take that. EU regs only require the manufacturer to support the car for 10 years by manufacturing parts sufficient to cover anticipated fails and you'd be surprised how that drops off after 4 years in service. Once you get past 10 years then you are totally reliant on old stock within the world wide dealer network and aftermarket parts.

What car and what year plus how far did you drive?

Spot welding is allowed and the weld integrity is far better than stich welding. I'd agree the job looks poor and could be tidied up especially with the underseal which could have been sprayed on giving a half decent finish. But it doesn't mean by any way that the quality of welding is substandard. You'd need to see the car in person to determine that.

Spot or stich welding is the correct procedure. Spot welding is the only recognised method of welding car bodies where Lloyds will insure a manufacturer for design failures. If the sill is continuously welded at the end of the job the side panels will look like they've done 10 rounds with MikeTyson, battered and bruised. Stitch welding cannot be guaranteed and needs to be done in a controlled process.

You having a laugh surely. Sills are never continuously welded, never have been and never will.

I can see where you are coming from Oddjob and whole heartedly agree but as you point out, they sell/give thousands of these warranties out each year. I'm not so sure Linzi and Carcraft are communicating that they are point blank refusing at this stage as I think the negotiations are on going. What should be happening though in my opinion is that Carcraft should be digging a bit deeper into the diagnosis VW have given as it seems a load of baloney to some of us. This would then give grounds to pusuit the warranty co who should be covering it. On the basis of what has been posted so far I think this is the right way to proceed and they must have some muscle with the insurance co. It's also not about influencing the warranty company, more about putting a sound case together for which Carcrafts help is needed. Main dealerships are notorious for trying to shift the blame and VW/Audi are some of the best at doing this. They will not admit they have an issue with a product. I've had a similar issue in the past with house insurance and a roofer saying the wrong thing caused the damage. Don't forget the warranty is an insurance policy with specific exclusions and how the hell VW come to the conclusion that what sounds to be an internal cam belt failure is caused by an external component is beyond me given the way VW seal the cam belt drive assembly. So why should any dealer be it you or Carcraft have to put their hand in their pocket for an incompetent main dealer? I don't think you would.

Hold on there Oddjob. This car is 10 months since sale and the official diagnosis from VW themselves apparently is that it was the ancillary drive belt failing as the root cause. As you know, drive belts are not usually covered by any used car warranty. Are you now saying that had you sold the same said car you would put your hand in your pocket and pay for it?? Don't forget it's £3600. Something makes me think you wouldn't! The key here is to find the exact root cause of the failure and then go on the attack with the warranty co and or VW. I still cannot believe that a FEAD belt breaking would cause this level of failure. Perhaps the OP could supply a copy of the invoice detailing the list of parts changed as if water pump features then I think there are grounds to go after it.

Ado, if you can see the water leaking, can you post a picture as I've never seen this type of failure on this engine before.

The more plausible reason would be the water pump as mentioned earlier in the thread. If it has a plastic impeller shaft then I'm not surprised as these are starting to create havoc in the industry now with durability issues. Problem is it is high time in service that highlights the design and durability issue when the car is out of warranty and no dealer would pick it up prior to sale. It's a bit like diesel injectors on HPCR engines. Some manufacturers are making this a mandatory service item at 60,000 miles. All is not what it seems now in the industry with cost downs usually driven by inexperienced engineers straight out of looney nursery and accountants all in the name of targets but forgetting the requirements of the customer who perceives a supposed quality car will last for ever. They just don't any more.

Will probably be in the loom Conniff and the strip out and re-fit. I've come across water ingress in looms some 1 metre away from it's entry point. Where did you get the 45 mins from? The notoriously unreliable ICSME manual or an official BMW SRO manual? From the BMW's I've owned to change a fuse box in 45 mins would be nigh on impossible and don't forget that the official time will include 10 mins for getting the car in and 10 mins for getting the car out.

[quote=Kiki1;4453608 Jaguars appear to be very picky on damp getting in under the seal, causing warnings to appear on the dashboard and preventing moving out of park on the auto gearboxes. Is that the XF Rotary Transmission Shifter or the X type J shift?

I'd agree with conniff here. It seems to me that car craft have met all the responsibilities they have to. Still cannot get my head around the auxiliary drive belt causing the issue though. NO dealer services cars before sale unless it's needed as it just eats into profit and if they do it will only be an oil and filter change. Frankly I'd side with car craft on this one unless the OP can provide evidence to contradict what they say. Their process as well does not seem unreasonable and appears to be quite fair with good intention on behalf of the customer. Perhaps if customers actually read terms and conditions an also understood what SOGA actually says (or rather makes it a wild and woolly interpretation for both sides) then there would be amore clear understanding of what is what. It would be better to concentrate on VW in this case as it appears to be a known issue where servicing would have hardly made any difference to the apparent failure mode. Perhaps if one changed tact and went after VW (if we can determine exactly what happened) the OP might get some of their expense back. I cannot for the life of me see what carcraft have actually done wrong here.

Think you mean wouldn't Conniff. However the charges could be reasonable . The box probably comes attached to the main loom which will require a total strip out of the cars interior, replacement of one use only clipping and then a rebuild. Depending on area the poster lives in, labour charges can be as high as £180.00 per hour. What will be interesting is the response to this post and the £180.00 an hour figure but I can easily see £ 4K here for what's involved. Issue needs to be taken up with Insurance co who instructed the screen replacement in the first place using mickey mouse to fit a replacement screen.

That's a bit personal Conniff isn't it? The same could be asked of you

The problem being Scania, which most of the SOGA brigade seem to miss is what is a legal definition of unroadworthy and how would one measure it to determine what is roadworthy and what is not. The truth is there isn't one and the current definition as pointed out by Mike is very subjective, just like the MOT. It relies on peoples opinion which is where the whole argument being put forward by those who advocate SOGA falls down. So lets take the nut missing off the ARB to strut link. Not ideal, but does it make the car unroadworthy? In the eyes of the MOT then perhaps yes but that is only valid at the point and time of inspection and is meant to reflect what the tester sees and the opinion of the tester as to what he deems the condition of the part is likely to be in one years time. If you look at manufacturers DFMEAS this is considered a relatively low risk item to the overall safety of the car however the detection method would score quite highly as an issue to be picked up on examination. It does not though make the car unroadworthy as is an aid to the stability of the car and is not necessarily essential.

I don't think this is the case with this thread Conniff, more a case of the SOGA brigade not being able to define what is the legal situation and or a definition as to what is road worthy and what is not. Hardly the Arfer Daley club taking over is it?

This rather interesting thread seems to have died a death. Any more thoughts from anyone?

Let's get one thing straight from the outset. Cars designed today have a designed service life of 150k miles or 10 years and are engineered to this. The reason behind this is that there is a regulatory requirement to require manufacturers to support vehicles built up to 10 years old with spare parts and potential technical support. This is based on world wide warranty data which is required to be fed back to individual countries regulatory authorities though generally all agree the limit is 10 years or 150k miles. So forget the 250K you quote, not any more. Now in your case as Sam has pointed out, it's hard to believe the alternator belt has caused this damage. It's probably more likely to be the Cam belt. The two are very different. As you have had the car for in excess of 6 months, under SOGA rules you need to prove the fault existed as opposed to it's assumed it was present at the point of sale. You also do not state the mileage at the time of failure. I used to do 1000 miles a week so in 10 months this would have pushed the car possibly 90K mileshad I been in the same situation. I don't think based on current info supplied you have anywhere to go with this at the moment until you clarify when the failure occurred and exactly what it was. It might be that you have an avenue open to explore with VW but without a full dealer service history this will be difficult. Just remember the regs regarding servicing outside of the franchised network only apply during it's warranty period and whilst it might have a full service history, if VW have never seen the car then you will be on a hiding to nothing as well. Any contribution from VW is deemed as goodwill and if the car hasn't been into a dealer for service then there is hardly any goodwill is there. However, you could try the goodwill avenue with carcraft which would be interesting. Just remember, cars wear out quicker now. It's called Value Engineering. Most professional engineers here will grimace at this as it's a contradiction in terms but unfortunately is fact.. ...a fact that soga fails to take into account.

Exactly .....and this is where the SOGA falls down and contradicts itself in relation to used cars. In my opinion it needs a thorough overhaul with the introduction of licenced mechanics, VOSA operated inspection centres and a requirement for all used cars to be sold with a MOT from said VOSA testing station. This would give some consistency to the market at the very least.