Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder



Recommended Posts

I bought a car from an auction in Jan 2019 and the car engine fault light indicated there was a problem with the ABS.

It went to an Audi Dealership for a diagnostic scan to identifying exactly the problems with this car.


One of them was a faulty ABS system which had the component, namely the ABS hydraulic pump identified as being faulty.

Since then, this has been independently addressed by a non-Audi dealership but now a new fault code  was recorded that hadn’t been formerly discussed.


The code 01130 ‘Operation: Implausible signal’ declared itself and is related to the 45F2 ABS AUDI UK recall over a year ago.

If put this to the dealership who did the diagnostic scan that previous campaigns that have now closed are looked at they will find that this is in fact an Audi recall fault and as such needs to be addressed courtesy of AUDI.


In fact, the same recall fault was listed as an item of charge.

When I asked why the ECU had to be changed as well and told it was ‘because the ‘ECU is one and the same unit as the hydraulic pump and the two are replaced because of the way it is constructed’.


The matter has been raised with AUDI UK who tell me that having originally fixed the fault at the time of the initial recall on this car, the campaign open for 6 months was now closed and they wouldn’t be honouring the recall.


As AUDI pointed out when this fault was first identified, this was a serious safety issue and as such I informed the Trading Standards.

They were satisfied that the safety issue had been addressed but had no redress as the campaign was now closed.


I was informed the 6 months was not set impartially but at the company’s discretion.

They believed the Motor Ombudsman would resolve the issue. 

This advice and the state of deadlock lead  me onto reporting it to the Motor Ombudsman but they flatly said they didn’t deal with recalls and ask Citizens Advice. 

I feel that a safety recall on a fault is an issue indefinitely if it exists as the fault lies in the design and construction which is implied as the manufacturer foots the bill.

How is it that after 6 months they are absolved of accountability?

Is this negligence on behalf of Audi? I

am not sure why the Trading Standards don’t see this as an issue apart from it being a ‘legal matter’. 

What advice would you give me on going forward? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand your story because is not completely clear.

You bought the car auction and you were aware at the time of the purchaser there was an ABS fault. Subsequently an ABS fault developed both this was a different fault and not of the type that have been flagged up at the auction. Is this correct?

If you bought the car knowing that there was a particular ABS fault then I don't think you have any comeback. However if the fort which subsequently occurred is not the one which was flagged up at auction then you may be in a better position

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

However having had a quick look at the consumer rights act, I see that it doesn't seem to apply if you have bought second-hand goods sold at a public auction and you had the opportunity of attending the same person – section 2 (5)

Unless someone has some better ideas, I'm not sure what you can do.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BankfodderI don't think that the OP is asking for advice with regard to his consumer rights viz a viz his purchase. He is asking advice regarding the failure of the manufacturer to accept liability for a recall that has expired after 6 months.


tedd4  - I suggest that you google the fault and see what the dedicated Audi forums suggest. Unfortunately various site team members upset the most knowledgeable cagger in these matters (heliosuk) so that he no longer posts on the forum.

Edited by Gick
adjustment of layout

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies For not being clearer in my attempt at being concise.


The ABS Fault code wasn’t declared at the auction, indeed the pictorial evidence of the dashboard didn’t reveal this alert.

On collection, we were told the car had to be recovered as they wouldn’t allow an inspection to assess roadworthyness as there was evidence of a collision again undisclosed. Once inspected the fault code identified a problem of the ABS Hydraulic pump and suggested that this and the ECU be replaced at my cost.

It was only when the unit was sent for the replacement of the hydraulic pump that the new code shown isolated the ECU and this was identified by the specialist engineer as being the same fault code the recall was based on. AUDI haven’t said that it isn’t the same and inherently acknowledge it is by stating the recall campaign is closed now so they no longer will honour its repair.  

Gick quite rightly points out, my issue is that a manufacturer admits liability to a particular fault code and states it’s a safety issue stating a software design fault and covers the cost. However, it appears that the manufacturer is the  entity that decides how long this recall is valid for.


Trading Standards informed me that they have no enforceable jurisdiction on the timeframe siting this was a legal issue best left with the Motor Ombudsman. The latter has stated they don’t deal with recalls as this falls outside the contractual consideration they normally deal with.


One opinion from a lawyer suggested this is negligence on the part of AUDI UK for not addressing the exact same issue albeit they fixed it once before. The fix was temporary and has recurred. Therefore, the same safety considerations exist as a result of a self-proclaimed design fault.


I have checked AUDI Forums and I am not the only person to have had this problem.

Everyone is forced to foot the bill.

This is unfair and criminal that no agency exists to put them in check.


And the wider question is,

does this principle of a manufacturer determining the timeframe on a safety recall and allowed to absolve themselves of any responsibility once it’s closed?

Is this not the remit of the Trading Standard?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this falling outside the Skills base Of this forum?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Possibly some of this may not apply, as BF says, but there are other remedies here, may be worth a look


What are my rights if there's a safety warning or product recall?




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...