Audi won't fix DPF problem under warranty

[Ben Hur]

Good grief! I read this letter from an Audi owner in The Sunday Times ingear section car clinic January 10 2010:

I have just bought an Audi A4 S line TDI cabriolet with a mileage of 32,000 from a dealer. The car has been serviced twice and still has nine months of its warranty remaining. As I drove it home (about 160 miles) on the day of purchase, the diesel particulate filter (DPF) warning light appeared, followed by a loss of power. My local Audi dealer says the DPF filter is almost full and because it had not been attended to by the previous owners the warranty is now invalid. I must now pay £1,200, it says ,plus the cast of a new sensor. What should I do?

The reply from the experts had no technical content just advice on making a claim under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. We can see Volvo is not alone with DPF problems.

[rippedoffagain]

Originally Posted by Ben Hur

The reply from the experts had no technical content just advice on making a claim under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. We can see Volvo is not alone with DPF problems.

Its a sign of the times I think. Companies rely on the fact that a large percentage of consumers have no idea what their legal rights are.

It always makes me laugh (ok I don't actually laugh) when I see notices in shops with headings like "Refund policy" or Argos's "16 day money back guaruntee". Such signs mean exactly nothing, because all commercial sales (be it for a product or a service or a combination of the two) are bound by the Sale of Goods act, and when marketing or advertising something for sale there's the Misrepresentation act and the Trade Descriptions act to think about too.

The trouble is, many people still don't know this, and of those that do, many have no idea how you go about fighting a case if you believe a seller has violated one of these acts of parliament.

The end result, is that we all get ripped off time and time again.

[shimon340]

Hello

It depends on the design of the DPF system ie the way the vehicle communicate the DPF info to the customer


If the Audi's owners manual says

"when the DPF light illuminates, you need to drive your car above 50mph for 20mins until the light goes off" etc then the instructions are quite clear and if the customer ignored the warning light and drives on till the filter clogs even more and cannot be regenerated (by vehicle on road or via dealer ECU programme or forced regeneration) then is this situation really the manufacturer's problem?

If a customer notes the temperature gauge warning light is on but does nothing, whose fault is that?

Thing is, proving that the light came on at time A and nothing was done is tricky. But, with modern vehicle data logs....

In this case, you'd need to note when the light came on to prove the customer's actions. The fact the car was purchased with an almost full filter shouldnt void the warranty. However, it can be the case the filter is now so blocked it cant be regenerated. It should have been that the warning light requesting the customer drive in such a way as to allow an in service regeneration didnt come on early enough. So maybe there is a defect with the design of Audi's DPF system.

(ECU calculates particulate mass in the filter but there is also a pressure sensor as a backup to check for a clogged filter).

[catch22]

The actions or inactions of a past owner are of no consequence in this dispute. The buyer entered into a contract to purchase with the dealer. The dealer agreed to supply, what he supplied was evidently "not fit for purpose" I would have thought an open and shut case if taken to court.

As a previous poster remarked, company's rely on the general public's ignorance of the Sale of Goods Act.

Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet
Subject

Sale of Goods Act Fact Sheet
Subject:

Sale of Goods Act, Faulty Goods.
Relevant or Related Legislation:

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Key Facts:

• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

• If goods do not conform to contract at the time of sale, purchasers can request their money back "within a reasonable time". (This is not defined and will depend on circumstances)

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

• A purchaser who is a consumer, i.e. is not buying in the course of a business, can alternatively request a repair or replacement.

• If repair and replacement are not possible or too costly, then the consumer can seek a partial refund, if they have had some benefit from the good, or a full refund if the fault/s have meant they have enjoyed no benefit

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.