Re mapping car

[Addyv]

Hi,

 

 

Can some one please advise where I stand in the following matters? If they can refer me parts of the law for further details on this matter that would assist greatly.

 

 

Here is the problem.

 

 

I had my car remapped (to make it fuel economical - was having problems and did not realise the faults at the time) and unknown at the time it was inherently faulty. The car was rejected within 6 weeks or so of purchase. The manufacturer has advised remapping has not invalidated their warranty and in the opinion the car was sold faulty following tests etc. The warranty the merchant originally claimed was no doubt the manufacturers.

 

 

The merchant (business) has gone through many excuses (originally ignored any of my phone calls): sold as seen (I am a private buyer), contract not mine (money was mine and paid for on my card, I have evidence), no warranty purchased (Monument), not a roadworthy car sold to them in part exchange (although we received a fine to say it was wrongly parked at a later date hence must have been working...). They now finally allege we have invalidated their own warranty (they had none) by 'tampering' with the car (although this was never stated originally) and that the remap has caused all the faults. They have even forged evidence. We have even evidence that the defendant is lying in transcripts.

 

 

I have found the Small Claims Court useless and proving expensive. None of the rigour I expected seems to apply.

 

 

The barrister, in my opinion, is insidious and a total liar. Very bullish and ruthless. He has completely misrepresented the facts and made me look bad twice. The hearing has been postponed twice now. I have bent over backwards and spent much time on the case trying very hard to keep to court orders etc. The other party has played nothing but games and has used underhand tactics. An example being, claiming that they are not represented and then arriving to the hearing with the barrister. Their barrister is no doubt doing much of the work behind the scenes like writing emails; very legal speak; but claiming they were and are unrepresented until the hearing day.

 

 

What I am asking is by having the remap, even with joint expert evidence (as per court order) in my favour, however they have disputed this by saying they were not allowed to add some of their documents which is very much opinionated and we only gave documents the engineer asked for the postponement was allowed so they can submit more documents regardless of any merits.

 

 

Do they not have a responsibility to prove they sold me a roadworthy car and that the remap most likely caused faults?

 

 

The barrister also stated again the car has been tampered with, this judge agreed, but the reason for the independent engineers report was to consider this aspect. So he now trying to get the defendant out of this. Using every excuse in the book.

 

 

I cannot tell you how applying this barrister is. I complained about him to the regulator and nothing was done. His conduct after the 1st hearing the judge told us to go out a make a decision, he took over and without question told a handful of lies e.g.: Sale of Goods Act doesn't apply to used goods.

 

 

He was extremely rude to us and condensing, that we don't know the law, he is a barrister and does etc...to drop the case or he'll apply for costs, by accepting and driving the car for 10mins or so it was accepted...

 

 

Following this experience, even though I had to borrow money I had to instruct a solicitor. He advised we would win hand down but he was no match for the barrister and was clearly taken aback. He hardly spoke at the hearing. He now wants to charge more to attend which I find unfair. It was he who made some mistakes and therefore the postponement occurred. Why should I pay twice for his mistake twice? I as left devastated again after this failure. He clearly had not gone through the bundle for if he has he could have given sound replies.

 

 

A remap is a software flash and reversible. Nothing hardware related.

 

 

This case is now going to be on the 4th judge at the next hearing. 1. Preliminary, 2. Hearing, 3. Hearing.

 

 

I have read:

The European law states that a manufacturer cannot cite after-market services or parts to void a warranty or reject a warranty claim. The manufacturer needs to prove that the service or part is the direct cause of the failure and the burden of proof rests with them.

 

The judges seem to side with the barrister and he gets what he wants. I have lost total faith in the justice system. This is causing me huge stress and anxiety. I originally asked for a repair, then replacement then finally refund when I wasn't getting anywhere.

 

 

I kindly ask if you guys can refer me to relevant laws on this matter. Including the contract aspect. My partner signed the papers, I was within the vicinity but with my children. The car is under my name and was driven by me. My partner is now unlikely to attend the hearing for we have split. This aspect was brought up re the contract and sold as seen. Clearly a trader cannot state sold as seen, and my partner did not purchase as sold as seen. The merchant says he did.

 

My claim is under the Sale of Goods Act.

Edited February 1, 2015 by citizenB

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

You haven't said what the other damage was?

[Addyv]

Very technical, fault codes. Engine misfire, DPF blocked, cracked engine, engine hesitation etc. no full service history (we never got the documents until later from dvla), sold as full, some worn tyres, over legal limit ( sold as all new) and more. None of this seems to matter to the case when it should. It all seems to boil down to the remap.

Edited February 1, 2015 by citizenB

[king12345]

You say:

"I had my car remapped (to make it fuel economical - was having problems and did not realise the faults at the time) and unknown at the time it was inherently faulty. The car was rejected within 6 weeks or so of purchase. The manufacturer has advised remapping has not invalidated their warranty and in the opinion the car was sold faulty following tests etc. The warranty the merchant originally claimed was no doubt the manufacturers."

 

For what I know you cannot just remap a vehicle and legally drive it on a public road for many reasons:

- change of power output; this would need to be declared to dvla and vehicle inspected to pass an mot otherwise the vehicle has to be deemed unroadworthy

- modifications; this would invalidate your insurance if not declared

- mapping a vehicle ecu will definitely invalidate manufacturer warranty, no matter for what reason. As a matter of fact back in the days of being a road racer I had a nearly new VW golf mapped, the turbo charger blew up and VW told me to get stuffed which is fair.

 

Given all these reasons I would say that the seller has got the right cards to win this hand.

He sold you a working vehicle, you messed about with its ecu which is the brain of it and the vehicle broke down.

It would be near impossible to convince a judge that the mapping had nothing to do with the fault even if it was done to make it fuel economical (really?)

[Addyv]

The expert engineer disagrees having looked at the documents. The manufacturer has advised car is still under warranty (with remap and in writing). We have this in writing. ECU remap is reversible. Car is not driven. Car had hardware problems not software. All manufactures settings intact. Problems prior to remap.

Edited February 1, 2015 by citizenB

[Conniff]

Very technical, fault codes. Engine misfire, DPF blocked, cracked engine, engine hesitation etc. no full service history (we never got the documents until later from dvla), sold as full, some worn tyres, over legal limit ( sold as all new) and more. None of this seems to matter to the case when it should. It all seems to boil down to the remap.

 

From all that is would seem that you never gave it a test drive nor examined it. You can't include the tyres as that is something you are expected to have reasonably been expected to have noticed if you examined it.

 

 

This is Sale of Goods Act 1974 (as amended), and it does cover used goods. Suggest you print off a copy and take it with you if he continues to claim this.

No, there is no such thing as 'Sold as seen'. That would be an attempt to take away or reduce a consumers rights which is unlawful.

It is up to the seller to show it was not faulty at the time of purchase.

It is up to the seller to offer repair, replace or refund at his discretion.

 

 

Have you got a proper written engineers report on proper company paper with their company registration and vat number on ?

[Addyv]

Dear Conniff,

 

 

The manufacturer is aware the car is remapped and has stated in writing the warranty is not invalidated. The ecu software company provider has confirmed the correct software was applied. The independent engineers report as per court requests states the same that the ecu remap is not the reason for faults. It was for the is reason the report was requested. However, the defendants barrister has now tried to claim we have tampered with the car so have no come back. The hearing has been postponed again for the defendants have claimed they have been prejudiced by not being allowed to provide some of their documents, namely their engineers report (which is full of opinions and he has never had access to the car) and he was not authorised by the court. They have now been allowed to submit this so we feel that is unfair and in breach of the rules but don't we don't mind for the report is a good read to have a laugh. They also wished to add another document which does not mention the car but they claim these were undertaken.

 

 

The car was bough by my sisters ex-partner and for her and the children with her money. Car is under her name too. We have evidence. They/the barrister are now disputing who the 'contract' is with. Her ex is unlikely to turn up. Any support here would be great to regarding the law.

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

This will now be in front a 4th judge beacuase of the defendants and their barrister. The barrister has lied blatantly on a number of occasions to our shock.

[Addyv]

That is documents to the independent engineer. I have been busy looking at these matters too including the law.

[Conniff]

Dear Conniff,

 

 

The manufacturer is aware the car is remapped and has stated in writing the warranty is not invalidated. The ecu software company provider has confirmed the correct software was applied. The independent engineers report as per court requests states the same that the ecu remap is not the reason for faults. It was for the is reason the report was requested. However, the defendants barrister has now tried to claim we have tampered with the car so have no come back. The hearing has been postponed again for the defendants have claimed they have been prejudiced by not being allowed to provide some of their documents, namely their engineers report (which is full of opinions and he has never had access to the car) and he was not authorised by the court. They have now been allowed to submit this so we feel that is unfair and in breach of the rules but don't we don't mind for the report is a good read to have a laugh. They also wished to add another document which does not mention the car but they claim these were undertaken.

 

 

The car was bough by my sisters ex-partner and for her and the children with her money. Car is under her name too. We have evidence. They/the barrister are now disputing who the 'contract' is with. Her ex is unlikely to turn up. Any support here would be great to regarding the law.

 

 

Many thanks

 

 

This will now be in front a 4th judge beacuase of the defendants and their barrister. The barrister has lied blatantly on a number of occasions to our shock.

 

 

I see all that, but forget warranty, this has nothing whatsoever to do with warranty, this is Sale of Goods.

 

 

I ask again, is this independent report a proper typed up report on company headed paper with all the company details ??

[king12345]

The expert engineer disagrees having looked at the documents. The manufacturer has advised car is still under warranty (with remap and in writing). We have this in writing. ECU remap is reversible. Car is not driven. Car had hardware problems not software. All manufactures settings intact. Problems prior to remap.

 

If that's the case, vw mugged me off at the time.

Well, at least I had a few months of fun with the extra bhp...

0 to 60mph in less than 6 sec.

Left Subaru impreza at the lights once...glorious!

[Addyv]

Dear Conniff, Yes it is, paid for. Fully qualified engineer. Both parties had to agree to an engineer. As discussed above the hearing was postponed for they disputed this and the defendants have claimed they have been prejudiced by not being allowed to provide some of their documents, namely their 'expert' engineers report (which is full of opinions and he has never had access to the car and not independent) and this engineer was not authorised by the court to do this. However, the documents will have to be supplied as requested by the judge and it is up to the independent engineer to make what he want of it.

 

 

We have advised that this is a Sale of Goods Act claim but they have claimed so many things. Warranty, sold as seen, trade sale...the judges have not said that you can't say that to private buyers and now pursuing the contract element. Originally the claim was just under my sisters name, but then her ex was added on (he signed the papers) following the preliminary hearing. They got back together, he provided a witness statement, they have no split proper so he will no longer likely attend. The barrister has requested he, the ex, be removed from the case if he confirms he won't be attending and the new judge has made an order for this. So you can guess what's his trying. The car was fully paid with my sisters money and she was there but with the kids in the car. It is she who authorised the purchase. This is being rejected by the other side.

 

 

I have read a number of things on this and I believe enough information to cover all this but want confirmation of the law &/or a link to the law confirm this stuff solidly re remap is irrelevant given the above, contract.

 

 

Thank you.

[Addyv]

As stated before car is under her name. She commenced legal proceedings. All the complaints to the merchant etc. from the start from her. Her debit card was used to pay some of the amount towards the car. Rest in cash. So I am sure I have it all covered since I have researching but just want reassurance re the law...kindest regards.

[heliosuk]

Not sure I understand what is going on here so lets go back to basics with what car, how old, what was the original fault, what subsequent faults and what and why you re-mapped and what re-map you had.

A time line of events would be useful as well as the OP post is very confusing.

 

 

I can categorically state though that in my experience no manufacturer will allow a re-map without invalidating the original warranty. You might have some communication stating that in their opinion the re-map has no effect but from an engineering perspective it could. I'm very surprised you have something stating that they would continue the warranty with the re-map.

 

 

Personally I'm not surprised that you seem to be given the run around as your post and details are very unclear and it would appear the defending barrister realises this.

 

 

Court judges are not daft so something has to be there that you are doing as well that leads the defence to be acting like you suggest.

[Addyv]

No the case is very clear. Quite the contrary, we have a solicitor representing us but the barrister out witted and the solicitor barely had a chance to talk. Our case is very strong. As I said the case was postponed so an amended report could be filed.

 

 

What I am after is the law aspects re contract element of my post.

[heliosuk]

Go on Hammy you know it makes sense!!

 

 

I don't think the case is at all clear by any means...well certainly not on here and in order for any guidance that could be given you need to go back and state the basics of your case. It appears you are asking for some advice based on a mish mash of info and if that is what is on here then in all likelihood so is the case before a Judge and that is not on.

 

 

What appears to be happening is that you have rejected a car after 6 weeks and having interfered with it the defence is using this as their argument.

 

 

I don't think you have gone about this in the correct way at all however you are not to know. So again I ask what are the basics of your case and the circumstances along with a little bit more detail and to add your case cannot be that strong as it will have been dealt with in the first hearing so obviously there is something there which is causing the Judge to re-schedule.

[Addyv]

heliosuk, thank you for your response. If only you saw the bundle you would not say the same. Indeed, it is the defendants who have made at least 8 excuses to date given each one the one proceeding 'failed'. Our claim has remained the same. We have not had the opportunity to discuss the case properly. I will let the solicitor deal with it. I wanted some information for my understanding and knowledge. I am sorry I am not clear. I did not wish to give to much information, indeed both me and my sibling who I am writing this for feel we have given too much information. With regards to my clarity, I am sorry, but I do have some disabilities. Thank you for your help.

[heliosuk]

OK and that's not a problem. But can you detail the faults with the car and what led you to get it re-mapped as that seems to be the crux of the defence. I's important you detail what car and how old.

[king12345]

Imho, reading the all thread again, there's very little chance of success with your claim.

Whatever you have in writing, the remapping affects the car performance.

The defence will go hard about this point (rightly so) because as said a remapped car is:

A. Unroadworthy

B. Modified and not declared to insurance = uninsured

C. Manufacturer warranty void (except in this case for obscure reasons)

D. Not functioning as intended. All finely tuned car components do not work as intended because the car performance is altered.

 

Thinking of this last point let's think with defence / insurance brain:

A door hinge comes off and a reasonable person would think that this has got nothing to do with the remap.

However it could (and should) be argued that because the car is remapped, it might produce excessive vibrations and the door hinge comes off.

That's why if a car is remapped for whatever reason, it needs to be reported to dvla/vosa and insurance.

The manufacturer will find out at the first warranty claim when they plug the car to their computer, even if the remapping has been reversed.

I'm told that to wipe out the ecu history is a very expensive job and the manufacturer would find out anyway because data that should be there is gone.

In essence you can't just delete the remapping without leaving a trace of it, unless you destroy all ecu data (so I'm told by a mapping 'magician'.

[Addyv]

Dear King12345, I believe you have it wrong. The car was faulty prior to having it remapped. It is not my car. Because of the problems a ecu remap was actioned with the manufactures settings intact. The reason for the engineers. We have been fully advised by the software provider etc. Ecu remap is completely reversible. It is a Sale of Goods Act claim. I believe some posters have it wrong due to the way I have written things. It is no different to routing your phone which is software and not hardware related. From what informative things I have read Conniff has it right.

[Addyv]

The care was used aprox 2 months and then shortly later no longer used. Did approx. 1500 miles. Tyres were pass the legal limit when serviced but sold as new. Wrong bolts on wheels. Air conditioning faulty. Lighter faulty among the problems described above. Cracked engine etc.

[heliosuk]

Actually no Addyv. Conniff has just tried to clarify the situation as he sees it based on what you have said. Others take a different view.

It is true in certain respects that the re-map will not affect other aspects of the cars operation but there are certain details you have posted which possibly could irrespective of the fact you have some sort of evidence from the manufactuer that it won't.

 

 

My position dictates the authority to issue such said letters on behalf of a manufacturer and believe me I would not under any circumstances issue one unless I knew without doubt what the issue was which you are not declaring here. And even then it would be crystal clear as to which bits were being referred to.

 

 

I think you might well have a good case but objective advice is impossible without the full details. Something smells here and I think it could be the way the original papers were filed in that you might have gone after the engine issues when in reality you might have perhaps been better placed to go for the overall condition. If you are rejecting as I think you might be on the basis of engine problems then frankly not a hope in hell of winning unless you can categorically prove that the re map had no effect. Just read the owners manual...all stated there usually.

[heliosuk]

You must give a list of issues with the car prior to re mapping that you found after you had taken delivery of the car along with what car it is and mileage when bought.

[king12345]

Dear King12345, I believe you have it wrong. The car was faulty prior to having it remapped. It is not my car. Because of the problems a ecu remap was actioned with the manufactures settings intact. The reason for the engineers. We have been fully advised by the software provider etc. Ecu remap is completely reversible. It is a Sale of Goods Act claim. I believe some posters have it wrong due to the way I have written things. It is no different to routing your phone which is software and not hardware related. From what informative things I have read Conniff has it right.

 

So to make it clear: The car developed a fault and the remap was done to fix this fault?

Did you contact the seller to advise of the problem or just tried to fix it by remapping?

If the latter, the defence would have even a stronger case.

I say 'you', but I mean whoever owns the car.

[Conniff]

I can't see, (unless I've missed it), the age and mileage of the car, can you tell us that please Addyv ??

[Conniff]

Have you an update Addyv ??