Supply of Goods and Services - which costs do I claim for?

[kp278]

i drafted a slightly different letter. i don't know if this should be a letter before action, as not court action will be taken on the back of it, that will obviously be once i need to recover costs

 

I have received your response to my letter dated 15th July 2011 in which I request that ###### rectify the original fault with the car.

 

Your letter contains assumptions and misinformation. That you have gone to lengths in your letter to express your confidence in the workmanship and the use of genuine Renault parts does indicate that you have misunderstood my position and it is clear that further clarification is required.

 

1. I contracted ###### to repair a fault of poor handling on my car.

2. ###### carried out diagnosis work and recommended the steering rack is replaced.

3. I accepted your recommendation and the rack was replaced.

4. I collected the car and paid in full the sum of £543.35.

5. The fault is still apparent. The only reasonable conclusion is that the rack was not at fault.

6. As the original fault has not been repaired, you are in breach of contract.

 

I am prepared to allow you one final opportunity to rectify the fault at no cost to me.

 

Please be advised that if I do not receive a response from you by 4pm on Monday 1st August 2011 I will proceed to employ another garage to carry out the work and recover the cost from you. Please note that no further notice will be given.

 

edit: and i'm not sure about that whole 'i am prepared to allow you one final opportunity bit as i've already done that in the last letter. perhaps i should just go ahead and get the work done and try and recover costs?

[heliosuk]

Hi KP,

 

Thanks for posting what you have in your last 3 posts. It's a refreshing change to see this sort of stuff here and as a result I believe I have a definitive answer for you.

 

The initial thing that stands out is the official notification from Renault on their spec sheet that there is a position for the arm bushes. This is mega important along with the fact that it also states the car should be unladen. This means 4 or 5 litres of fuel only in the car just as it rolled off the production line. So any additional weight, over 10kgs can affect the whole set up, especially on limited run cars such as a Cup version.

 

The next thing is which is heartening to see is the list of things you have done. Within this you mention uprated bushes and it is this I am pretty certain is causing your problem. The set up of the car is very dependant on this and the settings that Reanult give will be based on a standard bush. What happens is that when a standard bush is fitted it has a predetermined amount of preload built in when it is tightened in a set position. This is calculated from the material properties and is know as the dynamic stiffness. Essentially when fitting these bushes it sets the ride height at design spec and thus the geometry can be set. Many people and certainly most garages either don't know or realise the significance of this. As your bushes are uprated, it changes the whole dynamics of the car so potentially the settings the garages are setting to could be wrong.

 

You further go on to say that now it seems to be ok as regards the pull/drift issue but have wheel movement over bumps. This again can probably be pinpointed to the bushes and is known as bump steer response.

 

In conclusion, it would appear that perhaps the garage are not in the wrong and the only way to prove this would be to put new std bushes back in and then you would know if there actually is an issue. As you have moved the parameters of setting away from std you're probably on a sticky wicket in trying to get the garage to accept responsibility.

 

If you are interested in how suspension set ups work you could buy a rather good book by a chap called Machinskey but it's about £130. Alternatively send me a pm with your e mail address and I'll send you a powerpoint presentation about wheel alignment etc. Might take a few days to respond as I need to remove slides with certain references etc, etc.

[kp278]

i appreciate the effort and time you have taken to post a response, thank you.

 

with regards to feeling all the little bumps on the road and crashing over the bigger bumps, the car has had this problem both before and after each of the items were fitted (apart from the times mentioned above where after fitting certain components it would be fine for a very short while).

 

as you highlighted, the drifing seems to have virtually disappeared with the new solid top mounts.

 

but being able to feel every little bump through the steering wheel and seeing the steering wheel move by itself instead of soaking up the bumps has always been there, be it with worn standard parts or new upgraded parts, including the bushes.

 

the part i don't understand is how it can be fine for a short while after replacing an item then relax into it's old ways. so many false hopes!

[kp278]

i don't suppose you are near in hampshire/surrey/berkshire?

[heliosuk]

Sorry no and quite some way away.

[raydetinu]

shock absorbers OK?

Have you been in touch with renault sport or take it them for them to check out/test.

just a thought.

[kp278]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?311661-%A3600-car-repair-carried-out-a-month-ago-problems-remain-dilemma&p=3497551&viewfull=1#post3497551

[raydetinu]

sorry, whats left springs?

is there a renault sport dealer near you!

[kp278]

springs look good. a bit rusty. i checked them over when i swapped the shocks. i do have some nice new eibach springs in my shed, just reluctant to put anything on until issue is fixed.

 

i have a renault dealer near me, but no point taking it anywhere until i've gone through the motions and attempt to recover costs.

[raydetinu]

just thinking it may something they have come across before or get them ( renault SPORT ) to test drive it and see what they think!

[Gick]

I can see that many experts have made suggestions, so it may be that I am being too simplistic.

You have mentioned on a number of occasions on this thread and the associated one, that after doing certain work the results are favourable for a short time, then the problem reappears.

 

If I read your posts correctly, you have done some of the work yourself, so I am wondering if you have used wheel free lifting to gain access and at what stage you nipped the bush securing bolts/nuts etc? In most cases it is necessary to preload suspension, subframes etc., by having the weight on the wheels, usually rolling the vehicle back and forward a couple of times and the suspension bounced with things secure but free, to find a natural position, before nipping them. The vehicle can then be lifted to torque to correct tightness. As has previously been mentioned, no additional weight beyond datum should be introduced when preloading.

 

Even the garage/dealerships that have done other work may not have followed these procedures to preload especially as few use 4 poster lifts other than for Mot testing.

[kp278]

it's something free that i can try so try i shall.

 

on a very related note, i sent the garage a letter before action and received a cheque today for 50% of the cost of the bill, or £271-something which i think is a bit of a result

 

i'm currently going through the process of claiming for legal assistance via my home insurance. once that is ok and passed to a claims handler, i'll share with them my result and see if it's still worth claiming.

[heliosuk]

Hi KP,

 

Gicks post is a reiteration of my post #29 so you can see the importance of the bush preload on the lower arms ( assuming of course it is a Mcpherson strut set up).

 

The solid top mounts will cause the issue you complain about now and unfortunately there is no way around this with these fitted.

 

It's a common falicy unfortunately with tunning packs that they are sold with the impression that they improve handling. The bit they don't tell you is that this is at the expense of the ride and feedback through the system.

 

The manufactuer designs, tests and sets the parameters based on all round use, hence the type of bushes, dampers , springs and top mounts fitted. If you change any of these you are asking for trouble or heartache if you expect it to be improved and behave the same way.

 

In relation to your claim though, take it and run as to try and go further will end up in tears believe me if the garage digs their heels in. What's interesting though is based on what you have posted, they can't be that good in what you say they do as if they were they had legitimate and good grounds to say no.

 

Let us know how you get on with it.

[kp278]

hi heliosuk, sorry i didn't mean to brush over your informative post #29. it was in response to my attachment regarding rear bushes so i didn't pick up on it as i hadn't touched the rear bushes, it didn't click that it might refer to other joints as well.

 

i understand the comments regarding the tuning parts. indeed it was a big worry of mine looking for a solution to a handling problem and knowing that there is a possibility i've made the handling worse with these uprated parts, but honestly the uprated parts are not the problem. in fact the handling is much better with the new parts, it's much tighter now but still there is the problem. i except that i will sacrifice a little ride quality by taking away some of the 'give' you get with standard parts but the main problem is still there, i'm just having to work harder to distinguish between the original fault and the slight sacrifice on the ride from the tuning parts. i've got some lowering springs to go on (decent ones, not the usual -60mm drop that crashes around) but i'm holding off fitting them until i get to the bottom of the issue.

 

not sure if i mentioned this yet but i discovered i can feel a knock if i'm stationary and turning wheel from left to right. i hope after taking the 50% that i don't find the rack at fault!

[heliosuk]

The chances of the rack being at fault are remote. The knock you experience will be there due to the bushes and there being less hysterisis in the system. The bump steer you also have is due to the bushes. If you were to take the car around a smooth race track then it would probably behave perfectly. Don't use lowered springs either as you enter another very different world unless you are very patient and have loads of money and time to throw at it.

 

At the end of the day, it's all down to what you want from the car but as you seem to recognise that changes will affect the characteristics of the car. The problem is how far you want to go and what you are prepared to put up with.

[kp278]

hi, the car isn't suffering from bump steer and the knock isn't down to the bushes, however it does highlight how difficult it can be to diagnose an issue without seeing the car. i'll be back with any updates on either the technical side or the claim side.

[heliosuk]

If you really want to get to the root cause then buy a set of "chassis ears". These you can buy on e bay easily but it enables you to isolate the knock within minutes if used correctly. However they can lead to people changing everything unless they are used correctly. Well worth the investment though.

 

 

Still think you have a bump steer issue due to the change of mounts and bushes.

 

You are entering a very very dark area here especially if you go for lowered springs. It's not as straight forward as they make you believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kp278]

something else i noticed. if i'm braking to a stop on uneven surface (even slightly uneven) the steering wheel will pull either left or right, i guess depending on what the roads doing. enough to turn the steering wheel 90 degrees.

[kp278]

hi, i bought some car parts in june and after fitting them in july it was apparent they were of poor quality so i removed them.

 

they are not faulty in the common sense of the term, they are just poor quality. visibly they look fine. but they are still "unfit for purpose".

 

i intend to go to the trader today and request a refund. can the trader insist on sending them away for an inspection, or are they legally obliged to give me a refund?

 

thanks,

[rebel11]

Hi kp

 

Have a read of 10,11 and 12 in my signature.

[kp278]

On some forums my signature fails to appear.

 

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER-http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/

11) SOGA SUMMARYhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

12) WHICH? TEMPLATEShttp://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/understanding-the-sale-of-goods-act/

 

[kp278]

i saw your signature on another thread in this forum but i couldn't find the answer to my question- can a trader insist on an inspection?

[kp278]

i stand corrected...

 

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.

 

In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.

 

This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

[kp278]

that was easy. sounded like i was going to have a bit of an issue but they just gave me a cash refund

[perplexity]

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale.

 

 

They keep on regurgitating this all over the internet, but it is not a right provided by the legislation, to expect that the goods are perfect.

 

The crucial subsection is 48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act:

 

For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

The requirement is to "conform to contract" so if the goods were not described as perfect or of best quality, and if the price paid or the general circumstance were not to that effect, there is no particular right to expect as much.

 

N.B. also section 14(3)

 

For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

 

In other words, if the goods are "not faulty in the common sense of the term", the goods may well be fit for purpose.