Re: Citroen "customer services" - parts warranty claim (long)

Well knowing how long the threads tend to get in uk.legal, I'd wager at least a fair few people. And you moan about the length of it, yet quote the whole bloody thing??? People certainly don't need to read it twice.

Well indeed. Thanks for your useful input, anyhow.

Yup, I think that's going to be the next stage.

I had hassle with a Citroen dealer a few years ago over a part that failed under warranty. I contacted the RAC legal bods who pointed me in the direction of the Sale of Goods Act and told me which precise bits to quote at them. I also contacted Citroen UK and the combination of the two seemed to work and I got my money back, two free services and an MOT. But I do think you will be heading to court.

Possibly. Thing is, it's not something failing under the normal vehicle warranty, it's a part that's failed specifically under the parts warranty, so is a different kettle of fish as everything else on the van is out of warranty, and things get more complicated.

"AstraVanMan" wrote in news:g0Cjg.19364$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe1-win.ntli.net:

Perhaps enlisting the help of a member of the motoring press might be somewhat cheaper and more expedient...

Martin.

The message from Tester contains these words:

I didn't mind reading it the first time, but you have just quoted it in full, only to add one small paragraph of comment at the end. Couldn't you have snipped the bulk of it as you were not answering any points in detail but only a general comment ?

not really. the SOGA is quite clear cut. the part failed. the failure of the part has allegedly caused further damage which you claim wasn't there before you took it in. the vehicle is now unusable.

you're obviously a bright individual able to put into writing everything you detailed in your original post. you ought to stop dealing with the dealer/whoever/answers/calls over the phone and put everything which has so far happened in /writing/ to the *manager*. by name.

set out your *fair* request for them to make the vehicle at least as good as it was when you took it in and ask for reasonable compensation for your financial losses so far (no use of the vehicle, loss of earnings and time spent buggering about dealing with it)

give them 7 working days to sort it out to your satisfaction or you will hire a replacement van and instruct a solicitor to have the vehicle sent for independent inspection.

The orignal post was very long so maybe I missed something there, but didn't the dealer made good the van by replacing said faulty shock and associated bits? The fact that they didn't change the other side (which in their opinion was not faulty or damaged) meant that the dealer had nothing else to make good, no? Or did I missed something?

Here, who are you calling a gentleman?;-)

I think you missed something. The repair failed again shortly afterwards and the consensus of opinion is that the proper repair should include the lower suspension arm. Now the dealer has changed one shock but really they should change both as a matching pair.

I appreciate that shocks are normally changed in pairs, but in this instance only one shock is damaged and so by the letter of the law only this shock needs to be replaced. There is no law to say that shocks must be replaced in pairs.

Also it is only the opinion of the OP's F1 friend that the lower suspension arm "could" have been damaged when the replacement mount failed. It was not clear to me that the OP's friend actually inspected the "damaged" components at any time. Therefore the fact that any "professional" who would make such a strong and binding comment would automatically put their "professionalism" into question.

I was reading , made by the entity known as Malc, that requests spam to be sent to and I became inspired,

Er. Should I have used the word "People"? Sounds so daft.

It's a case of basic physics. The shock absorbers do what they say on the tin - they absorb shocks. If one is brand new, and one has done nearly 120k miles, then they won't be doing things equally, which isn't a good thing. It's not knackered, and is a fair way off replacement, but I'm rightly not happy in having only one replaced. It's neither here nor there that one isn't damaged - there will be a suspension imbalance with one new and one old, so the old one should be replaced.

"Could" = extremely likely. He hadn't inspected the van, no. But having been told exactly the manner in which it failed, it takes no more than knowledge of how suspension systems are put together to know which parts are going to be put under stresses in directions they're not designed to take. Simple as that really. The fact was, that replacing just the failed part and doing a geometry check *wasn't* enough, as it failed pretty much straight away afterwards, for the second time.

Well, the original faulty part that failed was the top strut mount - I think they said that the shock was slightly bent or something, but anyway, in the end they agreed to replace the mount, shock and lower arm - it's just the fact that shocks should be replaced in pairs (because if not, uneven forces will be applied to different sides of the van in terms of damping etc), so the other side needs replacing as a result of the other side getting replaced, even though it's not faulty. And I don't see why I should pay for that, apart from maybe a proportion of the part cost.

snip

well you'd have thought so wouldn't you ...

what most people call the shock absorber is actually the DAMPER unit. Its the spring that absorbs the shock and the damper that attempts to control the wheel motion thereafter.

However, having said that ... more of the shock energy is probably dissipated through the damping fluid rather than the spring so perhaps the damper is actually the shock energy absorber as such ...

WTF, who gives a damn

I hope you get your van fixed safely

" As an engineer the glass is clearly twice as large as it needs to be ...."

As bizarre as it may sound, might be worth checking if you have any legal cover with your home insurance. Mine for instance offers free legal advice (for any reason), plus upto 20 grand to pursue the case.

That's with Directline, but I know others do the same.

As an ex mechanic, you are correct in that shock absorbers have to be replaced in pairs, however if they replace your other shock absorber, you will probably not need to replace the shockers again if you do as sated earlier & intend to keep the vehicle for 200k miles.

Now you have got one side replaced for free & ancillary parts.

I would suggest you get Peugeot to replace all the faulty side as stated, then purchase a new shocker & get that fitted by your regular mechanic. I would then send that bill to Peugeot in respect of the warranty claim for full recompense. This may take dome time to go through the earranty procedure.

At least this way whilst out of pocket for a whilst you will at least resume some control over this situation & get your vehicles need sorted.

All the time you are arguing with Peugeot, they are keeping your vehicle.

Hope this helps.

regards

Gary

All very true, apart from the fact that it's Citroen :-)

But my point I'll try and argue with them is that I've waited all this time for them to sort stuff out with Citroen so that they could agree what they're going to pay for under warranty (or goodwill claim, whatever they want to class it as), before doing the work, instead of me having to fork out for the work first, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. It would help if they'd actually bother to return my calls to even discuss the matter though.

And regarding getting the parts fitted by my local guy - all well and good, but it would save a lot of hassle just getting the Citroen dealer to do it as it's already with them, then I can hit them with a small claims court claim for absolutely everything I've lost out on as a result.