Wiring Loom Damage... Wear and Tear or Manufacturing Issue?

[PaulJC79]

Hi,

 

I recently had a £800 repair bill to fix a broken wiring loom where it passed through a hinged part of body work designed and purposed for repeated opening and closing (power roof), the car is a 2009 308cc and i have owned it since 2011...

 

Now to me this area is designed to move, it has wires that pass through it and as such if they have broken they have been spec'd or installed incorrectly at time of manufacture... Or do i have to suck it up and accept that parts of the wiring loom are subject to 'wear and tear'

 

Thanks in advance for any advice...

 

Paul

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi,

 

I recently had a £800 repair bill to fix a broken wiring loom where it passed through a hinged part of body work designed and purposed for repeated opening and closing (power roof), the car is a 2009 308cc and i have owned it since 2011...

 

Now to me this area is designed to move, it has wires that pass through it and as such if they have broken they have been spec'd or installed incorrectly at time of manufacture... Or do i have to suck it up and accept that parts of the wiring loom are subject to 'wear and tear'

 

Thanks in advance for any advice...

 

Paul

 

I would think that any consumer rights would have limitation time period for complaints. However well designed, faults will occur at a later date and i should imagine it would be very difficult to argue.

 

There is also the cost in pursuing this and not having owned the car from new. I doubt Peugeot would be willing to engage in dealing with this issue and would defend any claim bought. Because you have not owned the car from new, you don't have a contract with Peugeot. You might have to pursue this with whoever you bought the car from.

 

There have been claims against motor manufacturers for faulty designs which have caused death or serious injuries. But if you research this, the claims are hotly contested.

[BankFodder]

The limitation period runs from the date of the breach – not from the date that the contract was made. If the breaking of the wires amounts to a breach of contract, then the six years would run from the date that the wires broke. This would mean that you are still in plenty of time.

 

Your problem is to establish that the breaking otherwise is not simply wear and tear. It certainly seems extraordinary to me that wires in a loom should break at all, although of course where wires pass through a hinge structure, they are going to be subject to far more stress. On the other hand, it is because of that factor that one would expect the manufacturers to have taken special precautions to protect against this.

 

I think you will be helped enormously if you can establish that this is a defect which has occurred in other similar models of about the same age. This will need some research to the Internet – but if you can find that this is happened to others then I think that you have a good basis for arguing that there is a manufacturing defect. In that case, the defect itself would be a breach of contract which would by now be outside the six year limitation period. You would then have to argue that the manifestation of the defect, i.e. the breaking of the wires, was itself a separate breach.

 

If you were in Scotland, the issue would be much simpler because in Scotland limitation period is for five years which runs from the time that the breach could reasonably have come to your notice.

[unclebulgaria67]

The limitation period runs from the date of the breach – not from the date that the contract was made. If the breaking of the wires amounts to a breach of contract, then the six years would run from the date that the wires broke. This would mean that you are still in plenty of time.

 

Your problem is to establish that the breaking otherwise is not simply wear and tear. It certainly seems extraordinary to me that wires in a loom should break at all, although of course where wires pass through a hinge structure, they are going to be subject to far more stress. On the other hand, it is because of that factor that one would expect the manufacturers to have taken special precautions to protect against this.

 

I think you will be helped enormously if you can establish that this is a defect which has occurred in other similar models of about the same age. This will need some research to the Internet – but if you can find that this is happened to others then I think that you have a good basis for arguing that there is a manufacturing defect. In that case, the defect itself would be a breach of contract which would by now be outside the six year limitation period. You would then have to argue that the manifestation of the defect, i.e. the breaking of the wires, was itself a separate breach.

 

If you were in Scotland, the issue would be much simpler because in Scotland limitation period is for five years which runs from the time that the breach could reasonably have come to your notice.

 

I struggle with the concept of limitations running from the date of breach in regard to consumer products. It is obviously correct, but how would you prove a defect years after purchase at a cost that makes it worthwhile. I should imagine that Peugeot would deny any defect and to get any engineers reports on the possible defect to help with a claim would come at a cost, which would not be recovered unless you won with costs.

 

On checking the government website in recalls, there have been other problems with wiring e.g lighting, but nothing on electric roofs. Given that the car has been owned by the OP for 5 years, they have had quite a long time to live with the car and have not mentioned a lasting problem. I should imagine that having to replace wiring on electric roofs after a period would not be unusual. If the car had been serviced by Peugeot since new and they had inspected the roof operation including wiring, then there might be more chance in pursuing.

[PaulJC79]

I thought i would end up liable to be honest but also thought i would ask the opinion of others as well...

 

The vehicle had only covered 35k miles to date and also had full service history, i am no longer the owner of the vehicle if this makes a difference.

 

Thanks again

 

Paul

[unclebulgaria67]

I thought i would end up liable to be honest but also thought i would ask the opinion of others as well...

 

The vehicle had only covered 35k miles to date and also had full service history, i am no longer the owner of the vehicle if this makes a difference.

 

Thanks again

 

Paul

 

So you sold the car to a private buyer and they came back to you with the fault, asking you to pay for the repair ?

 

If you don't have the car, how would you pursue this, in terms of having the car and old wiring inspected ?

 

Looking through the full service history, would the garages have fully checked the roof operation ?

 

How long after selling the car was the fault detected ?

[PaulJC79]

The car was in my possession when the fault occurred, i then had it repaired and following the repair i part exchanged it in for a different car a week later (which now has it's own problems and thread )

 

The car would not be available to be inspected.

 

The service history did not specifically state anywhere that the roof operation would be tested or maintained IIRC.

 

Many Thanks

 

Paul

[BankFodder]

I struggle with the concept of limitations running from the date of breach in regard to consumer products. It is obviously correct, but how would you prove a defect years after purchase at a cost that makes it worthwhile. I should imagine that Peugeot would deny any defect and to get any engineers reports on the possible defect to help with a claim would come at a cost, which would not be recovered unless you won with costs.

 

On checking the government website in recalls, there have been other problems with wiring e.g lighting, but nothing on electric roofs. Given that the car has been owned by the OP for 5 years, they have had quite a long time to live with the car and have not mentioned a lasting problem. I should imagine that having to replace wiring on electric roofs after a period would not be unusual. If the car had been serviced by Peugeot since new and they had inspected the roof operation including wiring, then there might be more chance in pursuing.

 

I completely agree with you in relation to the evidential issues that you refer to. However, I was talking about the substantive law.

Understanding whether or not you have the law on your side is only part of the litigation battle. You then have to produce the evidence to support your arguments – and that is generally speaking much more difficult.

 

Furthermore, even if you find that you have the law on your side and also you have the evidence to prove your case, you are still faced with the difficulty of assessing what damages you should be entitled to. If your starting point is the value of a second-hand car, then your damages will only amount to a portion of that. If also it can be shown that you have had some use out of the vehicle before the defect materialised then your damages will be reduced proportionately.

 

Nobody should imagine that you can take a six year old car, have a further three years use out of it and then when it breaks down you can get the manufacturer or the seller to reimburse you for the cost of a brand-new replacement part or the full cost of installing that part. If half of the life of the car has been used up and then you go on to enjoy a further one quarter, then the best you should be able to hope for would be 25% of the replacement and installation value of the defective part.

 

This would probably come as a surprise to a lot of people

[BankFodder]

The car was in my possession when the fault occurred, i then had it repaired and following the repair i part exchanged it in for a different car a week later (which now has it's own problems and thread )

 

The car would not be available to be inspected.

 

The service history did not specifically state anywhere that the roof operation would be tested or maintained IIRC.

 

Many Thanks

 

Paul

if you had that fault repaired and the repair failed then it seems to me that it is the repairer you should be looking to because the repair would be protected by your statutory consumer rights