Based on pg 24 I think it's clear that the onus would be Stratstone. I have a funnt feeling they may see it differently as they have been incredibly awkward all the way. If I need to take this to legal do you or anybody else know any good lawyers that specialise in this? Thanks again , I really appreciate the quick responses.

- I think they quoted to rip everything out and replace with new. They were so stumped as to the issue that I think they quoted something extortionate to get it off their hands. When I told them I wasn't accepting that, they quoted the £1200 to carry on diagnostics. - The AA but the report has come from Dekra. So yes!

It was April 2013 when purchased. It broke down in March 2014 and the situation has now dragged on for 3 months!

Although I'm kicking myself now, we paid on debit card! I just want the situation resolved and not be out of pocket unfairly. If that's rejecting it, having it fixed or having a replacement I don't mind. My issue is the statment from the engineer cannot define exactly when the issue occurred, therfore is there room for Stratstone to get out of it? Thanks

Hi, I am in a bit of a long running situation and would really appreciate some advice. My situation is an extremely long running affair and I will try and summarise where possible in order to get to the point. I bought a 2.0D Nissan Qashqai with extended warranty for £9500. The car was 4 years old and had only done 32000 miles. 11 months after buying the car and only doing 6000 miles in it, it broke down. We returned the car to Stratstone Honda where we had bought the vehicle from, they spent 5 weeks attempting to diagnose the issue by replacing several parts in the vehicle linked to the fuel system. They could still not get the car to work when they gave up and sent it to a Nissan dealership. The Nissan dealership also struggled to diagnose the issue and presented a quote for £11,500 to fix the car. This was rejected by me and they requoted for £1200 to attempt to diagnose the issue (with no guarantees). I rejected this and at this point we found that there was a potential mileage discrepancy on the car. This was investigated by Trading Standards who have effectively put it down to a previous admin error and advised that I should pursue the garage for the standard of the vehicle as they thought I would have more luck. At this point the Citizens Advice Bureau advised I should get an independent engineer out to provide a report. This has now been done and below are the observations and conclusions that I would really appreciate your input on. In my opinion (and I know I have blinkers on at this stage) I do not feel that such a failure can be considered fair wear and tear on a vehicle this old and only done 6000 miles from when I purchased it. Do I have a leg to stand on. Thank you Observations: As instructed, inspection was carried out in order to establish the cause of the engine not starting and check for possible diesel fuel contamination of the injector wiring. I would confirm the engine would not start. Diagnostic fault codes found by the current repairer, "Bristol Street Nissan", indicated electrical circuit failure to all 4 fuel injectors as being the cause. Initial inspection of the engine found no visible cause or evidence of fuel leakage. The repairer then removed the bolt on injector cover from the cylinder head. This exposed the fuel injectors and wiring. The entire surface of the cylinder head under the cover was heavily coated in carbon and diesel fuel leakage. Heat from the engine had baked the fuel leakage turning it into a solid crust of carbon and tar deposits - see attached images. The fuel leakage had also contaminated the wiring connectors to the injectors which would explain the diagnostic fault codes found. Conclusion / Opinion: Having inspected the vehicle in respect of the reported concerns I would advise; The cause of engine non-starting was fuel and carbon contamination of the injector wiring. The extensive presence of burnt on fuel, carbon and tar deposits indicated that fuel leakage had been occuring for a considerable period of time prior to final electrical failure. The area of leakage was enclosed under the bolted and sealed injector cover. There would have been no visibly detectable evidence of leakage. If it was present at purchase it would not have been noticed during normal pre-sales checks and servicing as the area is hidden without dismantling. It would not have been noticed during any possible MoT test done. It was not possible to be specific as to when the fuel leakage first started. However, evidence was conlusive that it must have been present for some considerable period of time, as stated above. It was not a recent or sudden failure.