Volvo: Problem with Dealer and Volvo UK - can anyone help!?

[carless_in_suffolk]

Hi everyone,

 

This is my first time posting on here and I hope you can offer your words of wisdom.

 

I have a 2009 Volvo V50. I've had it since new, bought it from a Volvo dealer. It has done 56,000 miles and has been serviced by the same Volvo dealer I bought it from every year.

 

It was making a rattling noise a couple weeks ago, so I took it back to the dealer and asked them to have a look at it. They made me authorise 10 hours of labour (£££!) to strip down the engine and have come back today and said that the camshaft is disintegrated and that "shards of metal" have been strewn across the entire engine. It needs a completely new engine now at a cost of £6,596.69! The car is currently sitting at the Volvo dealer waiting for my decision as to whether or not to fix it at that price.

 

I have also spoken to Volvo UK who have offered to pay 50% of this bill as a gesture of goodwill . But I really can't afford even 50% of the repair. Although the car is out of warranty because it is over 3 years old, it is still under the warranty mileage of 60,000 and I really don't think this should have happened!

 

My questions are:

1) Do I have a case to try and get Volvo UK to pay more money? If so, how do I get them to pay more towards the repair? I would probably be able to afford up to 25% of the repair but would really like to pay less.

2) Should I go to anyone else for help or assistance?

3) Is it worth complaining to Volvo Sweden?

 

 

Thank you!

Carless in Suffolk

[rebel11]

Hi carless_in_suffolk

 

Welcome to CAG

 

It's not a common issue, sounds unusal. The 3 years / 60,000 miles doesn't assist you. The SOGA 1979 applies. You've got a report from the Volvo garage explaining that the camshaft has disintegrated, then send that to the CEO in the UK with your letter of complaint.

 

Write a Formal Letter of Complaint, mark it as such. Explain what's happened (camshaft has disintegrated), how they have let you down (only offering to pay 50% - explain that under SOGA 1979, the car should be ‘satisfactory quality', 'it should be fit for purpose' and 'as described') and what you want them to do (pay 100%).

 

Send it to:-

 

Mr Nick Connor

Acting Managing Director

Volvo UK

[email protected]

 

Let us know what they say.

[Conniff]

Did you see what they reported or just take their word for it ?

[heliosuk]

Irrespective of failure mode you have a full service history on your side with the same official dealer.

 

Your letter should point this out as it's very important as it shows loyalty to the franchise. The key here is how much you have been deprived of the expected life given that it has a full franchised service history.

 

Volvo engines will be rated to 150K miles or 10 years whichever occurs first. This is what they are tested to and are expected to achieve.

Therefore you have been deprived of 73% of it's life/use. This is the most you could expect them to pay. However, the dealer during the time you have owned it has also profited so you should expect them to contribute as well.

 

Therefore, if I was Mr Volvo and it landed on my desk I'd apportion a contribution from Volvo of 73%, the dealer 5% leaving you with 22%.

 

Many years ago (and would be useful to mention) Volvo offered a thing called Lifetime Care with all new cars which was sold to the customer as if anything went wrong in the lifetime of the car they would replace it. What they failed to point out adequately was that they would only contribute to the repairs based on the use the car had.

The rationale was that the longer the car was in service the less likely a failure was due to a manufacturing defect. Whilst this is true from a statistical point of view many people couldn't get to grips with the principal and it was soon dropped especially as the guidelines were that you had the car serviced within something like 200 miles either side of the service interval and if you didn't comply then the cover was cancelled. European warranty legislation probably put a stop to it as well.

 

Not necessarily relevant in this instance but useful information to put to Volvo anyway.

 

You won't get 100% unless the MD is feeling kind that day unlike has been suggested that you should go for 100%......that just won't happen as you have had use of the car.

[carless_in_suffolk]

Hi all,

 

Wow thanks for your extremely useful responses. I am so happy I posted here as you have given me such great advice and I feel much better about how I will approach Volvo now.

 

My plan is to call Volvo UK again now and ask for more contribution. @heliosuk I am going to use your figures to ask for 75% contribution to start...see if they will increase.

 

If not, I think I will then go to the MD with a formal complaint letter quoting the things mentioned on this thread.

 

I will keep you posted. THANKS AGAIN!!!

 

carless in suffolk

[sequenci]

Do let me know how you get on. I'm considering buying a v60 - so your experiences would be very useful

[carless_in_suffolk]

Hi all,

 

I spoke to Volvo today. They have not budged from the 50% contribution but have contacted the dealer and have persuaded them to contribute 10%. So now overall we have to pay 40% of the total bill. I'm very happy that we have been given an additional amount of contribution from the dealer.

 

However, I'm not sure if I should push any further to try and get to the 73% that heliosuk mentioned??

 

What do you think? I want to get my car fixed but also don't want to pay over and above what I should.

 

carless

[heliosuk]

It's a start. The 10% from the dealer is a very good result but I think you'll find deep down that it's actually Volvo paying the additional dressed up to make it look like all are trying to help which they are. Essentially the dealer won't profit from the part sales they charge back to Volvo UK.

 

Personally I would go back in arguing for a bit more or asking for a discount on the labour and pointing out that you believe you are being reasonable and whilst they have made a goodwill offer it's not exactly the goodwill expected from Volvo.

 

There are a few things to watch though. The engine may not come with ancillaries such as alternator A/C compressor and perhaps even the turbocharger (if fitted as you have not stated which engine). These will be transferred over. There will also be a consumable charge for fluids (engine, gearbox and PAS oils plus A/freeze which is a sizeable amount) at retail. The mark up is horrendous so use this as a tool as well. Bare in mind also that Volvo's labour contribution is at a considerably lower rate than that for which you will be charged so ensure that your expected contribution reflects this rate as well. Do not pay for diagnosis time per say as this should be included in the whole job.

 

They might not accept the 150K/10 year rating bit either arguing that 150K gives them an engineering safety factor of 33.3% so they are basing their calculations on 100,000 miles which is what their supplier base is required to warrant to. On this basis without knowing the root cause of the failure it would be hard to argue against and as such you've had the best result you could expect.

 

Whatever you do, do not go threatening sale of goods act 1979 as they will all go into lock down and it could take months to resolve. Be reasonable and friendly and of course talk to the sales people as well. You are a prime target for a new car at the moment and they will have some serious targets to hit as it's September and you'd be surprised what they can pull out of the woodwork ;-)

[rebel11]

Have you written to the CEO yet? They won't take you seriously unless you use SOGA 1979? I haven't seen any instances where the 'camshaft has disintegrated', that clearly shouldn't have happened. Ask the CEO for 100%, see what he comes back with. You can quote SOGA 1979 and the letter can still be reasonable.

[sequenci]

Have you written to the CEO yet? They won't take you seriously unless you use SOGA 1979? I haven't seen any instances where the 'camshaft has disintegrated', that clearly shouldn't have happened. Ask the CEO for 100%, see what he comes back with. You can quote SOGA 1979 and the letter can still be reasonable.

 

It'll be worth taking Helios' approach first as there seems to be movement. Only go down the SOGA route as a last resort IMO - as, quite rightly, retailers do often dig their heels in to the ground (sadly).

[rebel11]

They can dig their heels in as much as they like, the OP has consumer rights.

 

It'll be worth taking Helios' approach first as there seems to be movement. Only go down the SOGA route as a last resort IMO - as, quite rightly, retailers do often dig their heels in to the ground (sadly).

[sequenci]

They can dig their heels in as much as they like, the OP has consumer rights.

 

Of course, but it's always better to take the informal approach first - especially if there seems to be a degree of traction with it.

[heliosuk]

Exactly Seq. When one starts to quote chapter and verse about an act which is open to inconsiderable interpretation then often with large organisations they go into lock down.

 

The OP should carry on as suggested and only use the law when at a dead end and as I and you have pointed out there is traction with the complaint.

[rebel11]

Maybe years ago, not the here and now, the spotlight really is on good customer service, if they don't resolve customer issues, it will lead to them losing sales, that's a fact. I'm confused by the following:-

 

'Volvo engines will be rated to 150K miles or 10 years whichever occurs first. This is what they are tested to and are expected to achieve.

Therefore you have been deprived of 73% of it's life/use. This is the most you could expect them to pay. However, the dealer during the time you have owned it has also profited so you should expect them to contribute as well.'

They might not accept the 150K/10 year rating bit either arguing that 150K gives them an engineering safety factor of 33.3% so they are basing their calculations on 100,000 miles which is what their supplier base is required to warrant to. On this basis without knowing the root cause of the failure it would be hard to argue against and as such you've had the best result you could expect.

 

Exactly Seq. When one starts to quote chapter and verse about an act which is open to inconsiderable interpretation then often with large organisations they go into lock down.

 

The OP should carry on as suggested and only use the law when at a dead end and as I and you have pointed out there is traction with the complaint.

[heliosuk]

And this is exactly why I and many other professionals in the industry get peed'ed off with your posts when you obviously know little or nothing about the industry, the product or the way things work. It's easy to spout off here is some advice and post a link to the shetlands trading standards office.

 

So I'll try and make it easy for you.

 

During the development stages of a vehicle the constituent parts are usually tested through many scenarios which include abuse, third world markets etc etc. Abuse does not always mean really hard use but can and does include low mileage useage. So based on known data for all scenarios along with legislative requirements components and the whole vehicle is tested to such. This is the rating. The parts are rated to a set figure under a set of scenarios. However some subcomponents might not be able to achieve this so overall you look at the system.

 

It could be a washing machine, fridge or even a bicycle. A target figure is set and tested to such.

 

Now once they have achieved this rating as a system a safety gap is built in. So for example an aircraft usually has two additional back up systems and to a certain extent this carries over to cars for example with split line systems on the brakes. Both systems will be rated but obviously there is a chance of failure as with anything. A bit like the lottery

 

What is known though is that as a system there will be a point when all components come together they can guarantee to a very high degree of certainty that they will all last 100,000 miles. This is usually around 99.8% per million opportunities I seem to remember based on a sigma value of 5.5 which is the international standard.

 

So in a nut shell it's all about risk assessment.

 

The manufacturer in this case could employ a contribution figure based on rated life or would more usually employ the 100K value as a bench mark as there would be a significant rise in risk between 100k and 150k miles.

 

I can see what you are saying. If it was me I'd be going for the 150K value as I know how to argue it and challenge anything else but for those who do not understand the issue and the engineering and statistics to justify it it would not be unreasonable to go with the 100k costs.

 

This is why people need to be careful of quoting chapter and verse vis a vie "just sue them" as is frequently irresponsibly advocated by some site team members. As I frequently point out, it's very easy to defend in cases such as described and they will defend.

 

I suppose one of the positive outcomes of recent months is that the oft quoted" SOGA is your friend" comment seems to have disappeared as it is not

[rebel11]

And this is exactly why I and many other professionals in the industry get peed'ed off with your posts when you obviously know little or nothing about the industry, the product or the way things work. It's easy to spout off here is some advice and post a link to the shetlands trading standards office.

 

Granted I might not be an industry expert, but it does worry me that the experts are trashing consumer rights - SOGA, the motor industry has a Code of Practice. The Code of Practice should be adhered to by manufacturers, distributors and dealers, but they should also fully adhere to SOGA, the shetland link provides the OP with the relevant information and to establish where the dealer has fallen short.

 

So I'll try and make it easy for you.

 

During the development stages of a vehicle the constituent parts are usually tested through many scenarios which include abuse, third world markets etc etc. Abuse does not always mean really hard use but can and does include low mileage useage. So based on known data for all scenarios along with legislative requirements components and the whole vehicle is tested to such. This is the rating. The parts are rated to a set figure under a set of scenarios. However some subcomponents might not be able to achieve this so overall you look at the system.

 

Thank you for making it easy for me. So parts go through a lot of testing in various scenarios. Some parts might fail.

It could be a washing machine, fridge or even a bicycle. A target figure is set and tested to such.

 

Now once they have achieved this rating as a system a safety gap is built in. So for example an aircraft usually has two additional back up systems and to a certain extent this carries over to cars for example with split line systems on the brakes. Both systems will be rated but obviously there is a chance of failure as with anything. A bit like the lottery

 

You really don't want product failure happening with aircraft, cars especially as these could have catastrophic consequences - the loss of life.

http://www.newsrecord.co/gms-recall-list-grows-as-13-deaths-are-linked-to-faulty-ignition-switches/

What is known though is that as a system there will be a point when all components come together they can guarantee to a very high degree of certainty that they will all last 100,000 miles. This is usually around 99.8% per million opportunities I seem to remember based on a sigma value of 5.5 which is the international standard.

 

That's good to know.

 

So in a nut shell it's all about risk assessment.

 

The manufacturer in this case could employ a contribution figure based on rated life or would more usually employ the 100K value as a bench mark as there would be a significant rise in risk between 100k and 150k miles.

 

I can see what you are saying. If it was me I'd be going for the 150K value as I know how to argue it and challenge anything else but for those who do not understand the issue and the engineering and statistics to justify it it would not be unreasonable to go with the 100k costs.

 

So the OP hasn't got or been given the knowledge to argue the 150K case with the manufacturer. But you have the requisite knowledge to argue the 150K case.

 

This is why people need to be careful of quoting chapter and verse vis a vie "just sue them" as is frequently irresponsibly advocated by some site team members. As I frequently point out, it's very easy to defend in cases such as described and they will defend.

 

Agree SOGA is 'chapter and verse' but your implying that it means 'just sue them', you really need to read my posts more carefully, it's always a last resort, a court will need to see that a litigant has tried everything else before lodging a claim with the court.

I suppose one of the positive outcomes of recent months is that the oft quoted" SOGA is your friend" comment seems to have disappeared as it is not

 

That is a positive note to finish on, 'SOGA are your consumer rights'

[Filcin]

 

... they can guarantee to a very high degree of certainty that they will all last 100,000 miles.

 

 

 

100,000 miles is a weekends motoring, it seems you have just confirmed there is built in obsolescence.

[Filcin]

We never did hear out this panned out ??????????

[Hammy1962]

So what's new, people post, get lots of helpful advice and opinions and never come back.

 

H