ETM Court Case
 

I thought it might be useful to recount the details of the court case against Volvo regarding the ETM.

On the court day I represented myself and Hapstead Volvo the defendant represented themselves. In terms of legal presidents, a judgment in the small claims court does not qualify. However if I have been able to win, there is no reason why the judgment in my case cannot be repeated elsewhere, and I am hoping this will encourage people to try. The more people that do, the more likely Volvo are to do the right thing and stop charging people for what is their problem. As a consequence they may also consider a fix that is permanent.

I explain this bit in order not to over state the significance of my case. I also want to be clear to anyone looking at doing what I have just done, that this is not cut and dry in legal terms and my winning does not guarantee success at another court on another day. What this judgment represents in my opinion is a triumph for common sense and what is right.

I would encourage anyone else thinking about doing this to go for it, as I think and obviously at least one judge agrees that Volvo are in the wrong on this. The more times this happens the more likely Volvo will be to back down and just fit the part going forward. But only do so if you are prepared and can afford to lose.

Whilst I am not a legal expert I am happy to give any information that I can to help anyone who wants to take legal action. I would always advise them to take legal advice as well.

I have attached a PDF containing what I would describe as an accurate and fair recollection of the court hearing and the claim and defence statements.

I hope this is useful to someone. If it is let me know how you get on.

If you extend this argument for every other part - then you should be able to get everything replaced FOC! There are lots of components on vehicles which should last the life of the vehicle - but they don't, and it's not due to wear and tear just the component isn't up to the job, and I'm not talking the odd failure here and there, but components you see fail regularly.

Going beyond vehicle's the loads of products out there that fail prematurely - because they used cheap material's etc - could we use the same argument against these? That they arn't fit for purpose?

I'm surprised at the verdict to be honest.

Take on board your comments. However I think there needs to be a bit of perspective put on the failure of parts. I do not expect everything to last forever. If I did I would spend my life in small claims court and probably lose a high percentage of the time.:regular_smile:

Volvo has built it's reputation on both safety and reliability and their cars are by no means cheap. It is surely reasonable therefore to expect a part of this nature on a vehicle of this type to last considerably longer than it does. And that was the essence of my case.

Why can a V70 owner in the USA have this problem fixed for free for 10 years/ 200,000 miles and yet everyone in the UK must pay? If it should last that long in the USA it should here also. Is that not a definition of what is reasonable from the manufacturer themselves, albeit under duress.

I fully appreciate and accept that everything has a failure rate. If I buy a £20 DVD player from a supermarket, if it only lasts a year or so, that is not an issue. However if I buy a £600 DVD player from the local HiFi emporium I would expect it to be built to a higher quality and therefore last considerably longer.

Despite all of this I still like the car, but think Volvo have got it wrong over the ETM.

I agree, they got it seriously wrong with the ETM, and the longer they denied it was a problem, the bigger the hole they were making for themselves.

I love how they say "it fails safe"

Yeah thank's when I'm pulling out accross a busy junction and it packs up on me, and leaves me with a max speed of about 15 mph!
or when I'm doing 85, sorry 70MPH and it just dies on me....

I totally agree with the ruling - but I'm still surprised as this can only set a precident for a multitude of other items that one could say wasn't fit for purpose.

For example, I bought a bottle opener the other day, and it broke after 3 cork extractions - it was cheap and nasty - but hey it was designed to open bottles of wine, it shouldn't break after a few goes.
Same with the cheap DVD players - shouldn't matter what the cost is if it fails prematurely, this Sales of Goods Act is just as flimsy and anything could be argued to fall into it just like the Human right's act.

what is a premature failure? How long is a products life? Should a corkscrew that costs £50 have a statement good for 700 extracts, where as the £2.50 jobbie states it is good for only 5.

Vipes

Good on you Andrew 62,000 miles from a ETM is absolutely diabolical, You hopefully have set a precedent now,
My car is on 96,000 miles and has been cleaned twice now, once last year at the cost to the owner 82,000 miles, NOV 05 at a cost of £150, and mine this month, so not sure mine will last much longer too, as most of my journeys are short ones,

Merry Xmas to you Gary,

Can't say I would be looking to take that to court, but a corker of an example.....(sorry couldn't resist):laughing-smiley-008

I have to say I agree, and am equally surprised. - No I don't think it's good that the ETM's fail prematurely, and yes I agree it's potentially a safety issue, but -

I thought it had long been established that the sale of goods act could not be applied in this way to cars after they had been sold for a number of reasons (which I'm not able to quote just now), and normally any judgement of this kind would take account of the fact that the faulty component has lasted 60,000 odd miles. Any 'compensation' would then be assessed on the residual life expectancy, usually given in the form of a contribution towards the cost of replacement.

I'm sure Volvo have consulted their lawyers already on this one, but chose not to throw the weight of their legal team into defending your action.

The reason for this may have been that - as I understand it - small claims courts have no actual powers of enforcement, ie. if your claim remained unpaid, despite the judgement, you would have to seek redress in a higher court before any judgement could be enforced by the court - is this right?

If you have got the money back, I'd say you've done well.

As I said in my original post I am no legal expert, and you may well be right.

Whilst I would like to think that the judgement was right, it could just have been a lucky break for me.

My advice to anyone considering taking legal action, would be to take legal advice as well. As you say if Volvo were to put all their might to a defence the result could be completely different.

Hi,

Thanks for the time and effort posting the pdf file..
Very useful..

I must admit, I have never known a throttle cable to fail.
On that basis, this ETM should not fail - period.
And yes. Volvo have built their reputation on:
1) Safety
2) Durability
3) Reliability
4) Longevity
This issue and their European response to it makes a mockery of those principles.

Sure components will eventually fail in time. But what is a reasonable expectation of life for a £30000 car? You could buy a house for that not so long ago.
Should the house collapse around your ears after 20 years?

Just because the car makers want you to buy a new car every 3 years, diesn't mean you either can, or indeed want to.
The longer a car lasts, the smaller it carbon footprint for manufacture.
Far too often we are being pushed into this "disposable society" and it does not do either us or our world any good...

Back to the topic though....
It would pay to make sure you prepare the case carefully and document all stages of the issue and corrispondance.
The direction the case should be driven should also be carefully considered..

Many thanks to Andy for the info on this thread. My particular gripe is that not only do I have a 2001 V70 with this problem, but that it was sold to me as an approved used Volvo just last April. Surely the dealer must have been aware of this ETM issue at that time, but absolutly nothing was said to me about this at the time of sale. I was sold the car on the basis of it being a top condition low milage Volvo capable of many years use. In my view a classic breach of the sale of goods act. The crux is in proving when the dealer definatley should have known about this ETM problem. Was it pre April 2006? If anyone out there knows I should be very grateful to hear.