Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

heliosuk

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,540

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by heliosuk

  1. heliosuk
    Actually Sam, the OP might have a valid point here on reflection. Whilst I'd agree in principal you are right the difference here is that it is an ex demo. As an ex demo the car should have the wheels and tyres specified at the time of manufacture as being a demo should reflect what the customer would get should the car be bought brand new. Therefore this enters a grey world. The car cannot reasonably be described as an ex demonstrator if the wheel and tyre design is not what you'd expect to see on a manufacturers demonstration model. As a demo the car has to reflect what the customer will receive so any changes made must reflect this oritcannot be described as an ex demonstrator.
  2. heliosuk
    How do you know the tyres are not original? What makes you think they are budget tyres? Manufacturers change tyre specs like they are going out of fashion depending on the deal at the time. Are the wheels as expected for the car?
  3. heliosuk
    This will be a very difficult one to prove and I fear bad news as well. What seems to have happened is that you have had a belt change and that two weeks later the tensioner bolt has sheared which has led to the belt falling off due to the obvious relaxation of the tensioner as a result of the bolt failure. Your problem will be proving that the tensioner bolt was over tightened leading to the shear or that he needed to change the bolt as it was a use only once bolt. This means that if the bolt is required to be changed as the tightening torque puts the bolt into yield then this should be changed as a matter of course and included in the kit. If it is not then it is not recommended that the bolt is used more than twice. Frankly as the repair lasted two weeks it is unlikely to be down to poor workmanship as you cannot prove the history of the bolt and neither can he. Generally if a mechanic has got it wrong then the issue would be very apparent far quicker than two weeks with a failure of this nature.
  4. heliosuk
    But would the car be logged as stolen/recovered? This would only be the case if the insurers had paid out the full value of the car and sold it on would it not i.e. they have a total loss. In this case it's the same as being nicked, recovered, repaired and returned to owner so would not appear on the register. No real difference to it being in a major smack and repaired and being returned is it. These don't show on the register either. Can't see what the problem is myself. Are you not over emphasising what the car is? It's just another car.....nothing special. I'd take it off your hands for 10 grand less if this is true. Will top up the pension fund nicely.
  5. heliosuk
    If he'd fitted it wrong lisa then it would have failed within seconds not two weeks later. Exactly what are you asking for help with?
  6. heliosuk
    Have sent a suitable response cgg
  7. heliosuk
    I'd need to see what you have sent back. Essentially if the inspecting engineer had done his job properly then he'd have measured the clearances between the hubs and or the selector forks. If all were consistently out of spec then it can be concluded that it is wear and tear. The support bearings though, which he refers to incorrectly as a pinion bearing show clear signs off collapse. If examined correctly which you cannot do by eye sight you will probably see a hairline crack in the cage. Sometime you can see it but this is usually when the box has seized and blown itself apart. What is not apparent though is when it is all assembled together and not visible then the crack opens up as the surfaces are then loaded or not if it has failed. It is this which should have been tested for.
  8. heliosuk
    The crux will be "and stop the engine from cutting out". If they had to do additional work to the injectors then this would be the defence. What they are doing is legal so it will be their word against yours which is why it is especially important that in future you get a signed job card detailing exactly the work instructions given. Trading standards advice is often mis guided as they haven't heard the other side of the story usually.
  9. heliosuk
    Just bare in mind that you are not entitled to a replacement/loan car and this applies whether the car is brand new or used. If they supply a car then it is courtesy and exactly that and if they want it back because yours is not ready you must do this. There are protocols to follow when rejecting a car. You can't just ask for your money back despite what people say about SOGA.
  10. heliosuk
    It's certainly not Qualification Snobbery at all. Just look at the IMI sites entrance qualifications and take into account the dumbing down of the qualifications in the last 20 years. As I point out, the inspecting engineers qualifications based on the entry requirement today hardly make him an expert without some other qualifying statement. It is clear as well from the report he submitted that he doesn't know what he is doing. He has carried out a superficial examination only. If he wanted to get a true report then for a start where is the data to support his subjective report. He has not measured clearances of the assembled shafts has he, which would determine if it was a sudden failure or wear and tear. He has not taken a sample of the residual oil for analysis. He has mis described the parts affected as well and contradicted himself. If I put this report in front of my senior management team they'd send me for counselling. Now in my book and like you having 30 years at the pointy end of the business, I would hardly call this report as prima farce evidence that it is wear and tear so am surprised somewhat at your response. It is true that I am against the knee jerk and irresponsible reactions of some and this post is a case in point. It shows that once the full facts are available then the right modus operandi can be employed. In this case I am confident that a proper assessment of the failure by another independent consultant engineer will show that this is not due to wear and tear but a sudden collapse of the taper roller bearing due to the design. As it happens, I have rather a lot of ZF engineers around at the moment so will show the report to them tomorrow and see what they think. Keep smiling Hammy, I'm sure there will be a lot more coming in soon from what I've heard on the early morning news this week and the OFT.
  11. heliosuk
    Purely on the basis that the inspecting engineers qualifications are based on a NVQ level 4 . He could have been a salesman all his life, know nothing about the mechanical side of things but the IMI still classifies him as MIMI and AAE. Now a proper engineer qualified to make a decision would surely use BSc CEng or IMech e. It's not like it used to be. In this case an engineer has made a call on a failure without examining the root cause and that is fact. What he is suggesting therefore is that all gearboxes fail due to wear and tear which is a pretty generalised statement and is a known fact. The issue is that he has not taken it further to find out why it has failed. DEKRA's reports if to be considered as valid are nonsensical. They employ people not qualified to make objective qualified decisions and is marketed as being the be all and end all of technical excellence and I would allege they are in fact trading off the back of the official Government agency DEFRA. They never supply any objective evidence. Quite clever really to make money. For DEKRA reports read nebulous. Has zero effect if challenged.
  12. heliosuk
    A section 75 would not necessarily be appropriate due to the length of time of ownership. But it's worth a punt though. The big thing is proving that it is not wear and tear. I'd personally kick it back to the warranty company at the moment on the basis that the inspecting engineer might not have been qualified to make his assumption, was not given the full facts and that inherently a gearbox develops wear and tear from the time it is produced. If on the assumption that a box has a sign off durability of 150K miles and is usually tested to far in excess of that, that this box has a full service history, gave no warning signs of impending fail due to the type of bearing, how can it be classed as wear and tear?
  13. heliosuk
    Well I have looked at the report and asked some questions as well amongst my colleagues. It's all led to the same conclusion...there is no case to answer as regards the retailer apart from an apparent miss selling of the warranty. However this is also debateable as the warranty is an insurance policy against sudden mechanical failure. What is wrong with the policies sold is that inherently from the date of the original sale from the manufacturer wear and tear exists. Therefore to insure an underwriter must inevitably take on a certain amount of risk that the box will fail early and must base the price charged for the policy on data as to the reliability of the box. In this case it is indeterminable to gauge the reliability as there is no comparison data available apart from a small amount of data based on web complaints. This is not an indication that there is a problem with the box, it's only an indication of people prepared to moan openly. It does not also reflect the number of people who have had no problem. However, I have looked at the report and the pictures. Given the age and mileage of the box and the failure mode along with the general design which I have studied, I think there are more than sufficient grounds to challenge the DEKRA experts report and that a sudden failure did occur. The report clearly indicates this and is consistent with what the OP has described given the design. The report is far from clear, is contradictory and clearly biased given that he was given a set of questions. I do not know why people put so much faith in DEKRA reports. They are not independent, are frequently not carried out by qualified people and must be biased by the nature of the questions asked. Sorry.. the so called expert has got it wrong in this instance. It's a clear cut case of a taper roller collapsing leading to excessive end float. This would have given no warning. Had it been a roller bearing then the issue would be different.
  14. heliosuk
    It's a term used to describe an area of the tensile strength (mechanical property) of a metal, especially important in bolts/studs. Another area is the elastic area but then you'd probably think that's something that holds your pants up. It's all relevant to your claim against LLV but you seem intent on listening to Kwik fit type of fitters rather than a Chartered Engineer with a specialism in the mechanical properties of steels and cast irons and who designs these things for a living. You're on your own now as requested.
  15. heliosuk
    No you haven't. You have said the wheels were cross threaded and don't fit. So that's the fundamental flaw in your argument. They do fit as they are on the vehicle and cannot be cross threaded as they don't have a thread. Your argument has to be around the fact that the wheel nuts were most probably unsuitable for the type of wheel fitted and that they cross threaded them which in turn led to an insufficient clamp force and most probably led to the stretching of the stud into it's plastic area which will lead to a shear. When it comes to your independent experts I think I might just out rank them and I know for a fact whose explanation a court will side on!
  16. heliosuk
    DX..if this is the case when can cgg accept PM's and attachments?
  17. heliosuk
    More to the point, why can't you accept the fact that you MIGHT be barking up the wrong tree here? You cannot cross thread a wheel, it has no thread, just a hole. You cannot usually force a wheel on unless the PCD doesn't match and the PCD's are as such that you cannot do it. It sounds like that what has actually happened is that the wrong wheel nuts have been fitted and cross threaded which WILL lead to an insufficient clamp force and thus allow the wheel to move. This is what has more than likely caused the shear of the studs. I'm certainly not saying LLV are not in the wrong but you have a very funny way of putting things across and your attitude is such that you shoot first based on nonsense information and ask questions later. This is what get's people into trouble when in court. Objective fact counts not your word or that of some muppets who have obviously told you a load of baloney. No I don't work for LLV but if they want to employ me to defeat your case then I'm open to offers. Don't rely on trading standards either, they are toothless tigers.
  18. heliosuk
    Alloy studs????????????? Well perhaps a steel alloy but certainly not an aluminium alloy as per the wheel. And either they do line up or they don't otherwise the wheel just won't fit. Unless you start quoting facts you are urinating in the wind so to speak.
  19. heliosuk
    Well I have tried to send a response as promised to use to you tonight cgg and copy DX out of courtesy but it seems I cannot send a response.
  20. heliosuk
    Well if you say so. You obviously know more about wheels, hubs, studs and nuts than I do
  21. heliosuk
    Withdrawn as advised by the site team
  22. heliosuk
    The pictures would be useful as well. So page 3 of the dx pdf is page one of the report. This is the instruction to the engineer to examine and what they are interested in seeing. So it asks 5 questions. 1. What has failed and why? The report is clear on what has failed but does not address the question as to why. 2. What is the condition of the bearings? Is pretty succinct though contradictory in that it refers to the same said bearing as being a taper roller bearing and a ball bearing. The report failure mode is consistent with a roller bearing failure but not a taper roller. It can either be one or the other. A taper roller seldom disengages from the outer cage or race purely on the fact it is a taper. Therefore it must refer to a ball bearing which is possible. 3. What is the condition of the baulk rings and hubs? This is largely an irrelevant question in relation to the fault complained of. As the bearing has collapsed then the wear patterns would be on the selector forks and would be expected. 4. What is the condition of the residual oil? Well has been self explanatory but has not addressed the question of the quality of the oil. 5. What earlier action by the driver could have prevented or lessened the affect of the damage? Well this appears to have just been ignored. The rather interesting thing is that the report in it's recommendations and conclusions gives the impression that it is not actually the report submitted by the inspecting engineer. I'm sure given the criticism it's not the same thing that he wrote. However, I'm very critical of DEKRA and the capability of their staff. You only have to follow through their web site to see how they recruit and the qualifications are just not the same as when the likes of Hammy, Connif and myself got them. Even a salesman can get MIMI now. I still don't believe there was no warning, but giving the benefit of the doubt that the OP did not hear anything and having an OCD against noise it is quite clear that the report is biased, wholly unreliable from an engineering point of view and might have been written on Andrex for its worth. Send me a full report via PM as a PDF and I'll send you a suitable response challenging it which will be enough to make them change their minds.
  23. heliosuk
    Please upload the full PDF file not a screen dump. You are not making this easy for any one. Again there is an anomaly in the 3rd JPG. We need to see the full report.
  24. heliosuk
    We need to see the full report to make an objective assessment but you need to leave out the personal details such as your address, the examiners name etc.
  25. heliosuk
    Hardly good enough for a court case though is it? It's more likely they had the wrong wheel nuts fitted as opposed to the wrong wheels.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...