Should Volvo honour this warranty issue??

[shimon340]

@s60ben - you have misunderstood my point. my point relating to it being bought from a dealer was a passing comment as an example of the sort of thing manufacturers could set as their goodwill criteria. and they can set anything they like. you point about us not supporting the customer etc is rubbish, lacks integrity and if the job was like that I wouldnt have kept it. we assess liability. Is there a faulty component, is that the manufacturers fault? customer damage? we also dont pay when dealers break components either. we pay when it is the manufacturers liability. you opinion about spending us little as possible are simply rubbish. some companies maybe dodgy in this sense but Im not.

outside of the warranty the manufacturer wouldnt be receiving warranty claims. Inside of warranty the manufacturer assesses their liability based on diagnosis and component inspection. If rejected, the customer can try to prove it is indeed the manufacturer's fault. outside of warranty and 6 months after sale you want to say its the manufacturers liability - you prove it. see sales of goods act.

I'm trying to see all three sides here, customer, dealer and manufacturer. People here are tending to blame volvo and the dealer too much. Fault reported but never witnessed, experienced or noted as actually occuring.

more info is needed to asses liability here.

dealer could never reproduce the fault.

to get a warranty claim - you need diagnosis. FACT and that hasnt happened has it??

I quoted sales of goods act etc to explain my points

and Nuisance - the fact Honda paid for a manifold at 110k is no longer proof Honda are a wonderful company. They paid out to sweeten you up and to stop you taking them to court. Given that this was a known problem which could be shown to exist from production - under oath Honda engineers would say the problem existed from production - and honda wouldnt want a president case ie one which opens the flood gates for the 1000s of vehicles with these faulty parts getting 100% payment. They would want to keep this out of court hoping a % of customers wouldnt want them to pay. the manifold problem is evidently a "known concern" and they dont want these to go to court.

order of this case

1) was the fault reported in warranty - yes
2) was it diagnosed - no
3)could it be reproduced - no
4) faulty at time of sale - fault not evident (need to prove not fault present from manufacture as per sales of goods act)
5) gearbox failure
6) evidence of cause- lacking
7) proof of manufacturer liability - not present at this time
8) diagnosis - lacking

and the case goes no where till it is proven to be volvo or the customer's fault

comparison to insurance cases is irrelevant. in those cases there was evidence that something had been broken and liability was identified.

50% goodwill offer without diagnosis is surprising and generous. it seems that is based on time out of warranty and mileage and the assumption paying half will resolve this. If the customer wants more, they need to prove its volvo's fault

nuff said.

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

Without a fault, and having no Volvo technician having experienced the fault after two test drives (no knowing how long the tests were or how they tested mind) Volvo have still come up with 50% goodwill?
Pardon? Rat... Can... Smell... I...
They were a bit quick to come up with this offer (and the 10% from the dealer too!!) on the basis there is no fault on the part of Volvo...
Or do Volvo know something we don't??

Des. . .

[s60ben]

Originally Posted by CTCNetwork

Hi,

Without a fault, and having no Volvo technician having experienced the fault after two test drives (no knowing how long the tests were or how they tested mind) Volvo have still come up with 50% goodwill?
Pardon? Rat... Can... Smell... I...
They were a bit quick to come up with this offer (and the 10% from the dealer too!!) on the basis there is no fault on the part of Volvo...
Or do Volvo know something we don't??

Des. . .

Yes, very honest, very reputable these manufacturers warranty departments...

Originally Posted by Shimon

@s60ben - you have misunderstood my point. my point relating to it being bought from a dealer was a passing comment as an example of the sort of thing manufacturers could set as their goodwill criteria. and they can set anything they like. you point about us not supporting the customer etc is rubbish, lacks integrity and if the job was like that I wouldnt have kept it. we assess liability. Is there a faulty component, is that the manufacturers fault? customer damage? we also dont pay when dealers break components either. we pay when it is the manufacturers liability. you opinion about spending us little as possible are simply rubbish. some companies maybe dodgy in this sense but Im not.

Really?

Originally Posted by Shimon

i work for a japanese manufacturer and all the cars have rushed development, are tested properly, have faults that should never have made it to a production and that more thorough testing would have eliminated. there is also the mindset to start every car from scratch rather than take (any) of the good bits from previous work. production has very short pre-production so prod faults are numerous on new models. product cycles are short so problems dont get resolved and by the time there is enought evidence of problems in warranty and after that (5-6 year prod cycle so 2 years "goodwill" contributions are available) it is then too late to address problem are sort peoples cars = problematic low quality cars that have short service life further shortened by lack of addressing of concerns.

So you are saying that it's quite common for clear unfit for purpose claims are treated as "Goodwill" now thats "Nuff Said" in my opinion rather than just paid up in full and resolved as they should be.....

Shimon, no offence but you can keep saying that warranty claims aren't biased towards not paying out but the evidence in general doesnt bear that out from my personal experience.................. and you even say so much yourself.

What Nissan do or doesn't do in their warranty claims team is to prevent being taken to court, no different to honda, and no doubt no different to volvo, if that takes threats of "well if you do, then we'll withdraw our (lack of) goodwill offer" then so be it.

Volvo showed their full colours in the ETM issues, full "warranty coverage" in the USA, nack all warranty in the UK market......

Once again, trying to avoid paying out for a very well known fault, and clearly not fit for purpose, even when they were taken to court and lost.

Vauxhall are playing the game at the minute I see with their dodgy handbrakes... even now recommending that "pressing the button in whilst applying the handbrake" is incorrect... It'll all change when someone is seriously injured or killed and the insurers go after the manufacturer.

I appreciate your input, I really do, however IMHO it's tainted by the experience and the attitude that warranty claims payments have... which would appear to be "Don't pay up at any cost unless we can get screwed for it".

As I said before, we will no doubt have to agree to disagree, you are not going to convince me, and I've given up atm trying to say much more. I asked a legal professional (which I am not, and you arent) and they said "go for it", I should also add, that they would also cover that representation. I can say no more really.

[Nuisance]

Ok Lets address these points.

Originally Posted by shimon340

outside of the warranty the manufacturer wouldnt be receiving warranty claims. Inside of warranty the manufacturer assesses their liability based on diagnosis and component inspection. If rejected, the customer can try to prove it is indeed the manufacturer's fault. outside of warranty and 6 months after sale you want to say its the manufacturers liability - you prove it. see sales of goods act.

This is not being questioned.

Originally Posted by shimon340

I'm trying to see all three sides here, customer, dealer and manufacturer. People here are tending to blame volvo and the dealer too much. Fault reported but never witnessed, experienced or noted as actually occuring.

more info is needed to asses liability here.

dealer could never reproduce the fault.

to get a warranty claim - you need diagnosis. FACT and that hasnt happened has it??.

Due to the very short time that dealers spend on a reported intermittent fault this is not suprising. In the automotive world a dealer is pushed by the accountants to spend as little time as possible fault finding as it costs money so they will not run the car for a week just to see why it pops out of gear.

In my business we really do spend time tracing intermittent faults. we have to keep things online and cannot allow things to go catastrophic before we fix them. I'd say 50% of my service calls are to occasional faults, things like "it cut out" or "it makes a funny noise sometime" to dismiss these complaints would be neglegent, and you cannot just dismiss the customers complaints. OK if the customer was complaining about his wipers then his gearbox went, then yes, but this complaint was very related to the fault.
Many times I have to go off experience and have a shot, sometimes (more often than not) it works, other times it doesn't. But we have to resolve it there and then, we cannot leave and say "sorry we didn't see it" just like this Volvo dealer did.

Originally Posted by shimon340

and Nuisance - the fact Honda paid for a manifold at 110k is no longer proof Honda are a wonderful company. They paid out to sweeten you up and to stop you taking them to court. Given that this was a known problem which could be shown to exist from production - under oath Honda engineers would say the problem existed from production - and honda wouldnt want a president case ie one which opens the flood gates for the 1000s of vehicles with these faulty parts getting 100% payment. They would want to keep this out of court hoping a % of customers wouldnt want them to pay. the manifold problem is evidently a "known concern" and they dont want these to go to court.

I know full well why it was sorted. They took responsibility for their fault and resolved it. You see the issue here is that the customer is being made to feel that Volvo are saying it's not their problem. but as a gesture they will go half way on a very expensive part.
You see my case with Honda was that they were always open and curteous throught the issue, nothing was done begrudgingly, and I was treated well. I know it's all "customer relations"

Look at the case of my disaster of a Nissan Primera 2.2TD company car(bloody awful car) It blew up twice, and the second time was out of warranty. The second blow up turned out to be because the oil filter seal failed, but as it was a genine nissan part Nissan re-built the engine totally FOC, once again there was no half hearted 50% "good will" gesture. Sure the engine was worn, but I wasn't expected to contribute to it's re-build. If the oil filter hadn't blown off then this worn engine would still have lasted me another 100,000 miles.

You see it's the partial gestures that leave a bitter after taste.

Originally Posted by shimon340

order of this case

1) was the fault reported in warranty - yes OK
2) was it diagnosed - no Not the customers problem. Dealers fault
3)could it be reproduced - no Same here
4) faulty at time of sale - fault not evident (need to prove not fault present from manufacture as per sales of goods act) Impossible as faults can "develop" so won't be evident at time of sale

Originally Posted by shimon340

5) gearbox failure
6) evidence of cause- lacking
7) proof of manufacturer liability - not present at this time
8) diagnosis - lacking

and the case goes no where till it is proven to be volvo or the customer's fault

Very true so at this stage Volvo should not be even contemplating offering a 50% gesture they should be investigating to see what the cause is. only then should they make an offer. in this case they have taken a stab in the dark.

Originally Posted by shimon340

comparison to insurance cases is irrelevant. in those cases there was evidence that something had been broken and liability was identified.

No, Here too there was evidence of a gear related fault within the warranty period.

Originally Posted by shimon340

50% goodwill offer without diagnosis is surprising and generous. it seems that is based on time out of warranty and mileage and the assumption paying half will resolve this. If the customer wants more, they need to prove its volvo's fault.

I'd say it's suprising. I'd also say it shouldn't have been offered. From an accountants point of view it's a worthwhile bet, maybe the customer will go away and maybe it will be a warranty fault, then Volvo would be onto a winner wouldn't they?

[Nuisance]

Originally Posted by andyrs

a, The fault wasn't ever experienced/reproduced by the dealer so was it actually a fault?

From this we can deduce that China doesn't exist, because I've never seen it.

Very Very flawed statement. I deal with this type of fault weekly and 90% pf them turn out to be true. Just because I can't re-create them doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Originally Posted by andyrs

b, Based on the above how do we know that the reported fault was the reason behind the gearbox failure?

We don't, but at this stage neither do Volvo know the opposite.

Originally Posted by andyrs

I can see peoples statements re. car insurance claims due to accidents but these claims would be based on the fact that a vehicle was indeed subject to an actual accident. You can't claim for an accident if the accident didn't occur.


The fact is there is no proof to suggest, at this stage, that the reported fault is indeed the same fault or indeed that there was even a fault there. I think that if it were my car based on what others have written I would have further investigation carried out by a mutually agreed independant probably at my expense. But I would be worried that a direct result of having the gearbox inspected would probably be that Volvo would remove the goodwill offer. This I suspect would probably then mean the Volvo driver will end up footing the entire repair bill as I can't see Volvo being liable for the repair in the long run. Although I would be interested to hear of the outcome I will keep an eye on this post.

At this stage Volvo should investigate the initial report and the whole car, and treat it as a warranty claim untill such time that they find that either, the 2 issues are un-related, or that they are a result of mis-use.

[AndysR]

Originally Posted by Nuisance

From this we can deduce that China doesn't exist, because I've never seen it.

Very Very flawed statement. I deal with this type of fault weekly and 90% pf them turn out to be true. Just because I can't re-create them doesn't mean they didn't happen.



We don't, but at this stage neither do Volvo know the opposite.



At this stage Volvo should investigate the initial report and the whole car, and treat it as a warranty claim untill such time that they find that either, the 2 issues are un-related, or that they are a result of mis-use.

Interesting I like the analogy, if this were to go legal at this stage who would be correct though? The customer because it is written on a job card to request investigation into a possible fault or VCUK even though the fault hasn't been proved at this stage although it was intermitant? I don't know and am interested to see what you think?

We both agree that the vehicle requires further diagnoses, this has to be authorised by the owner. However im not convinced that the customer would be happy to authorise the further diagnoses based on the possibility that the fault may not be deemed to be a valid warranty claim and in that event all incured costs would then be expected to be met by the customer? In the same way that court costs would have to be covered by the guilty party in a court case?

[Nuisance]

On the first point, from a claim point of view, the fact that a gear shift fault was reported within warranty and not fixed is VERY important. If the failure can be traced back to this fault, and is not abuse then it IS a warranty repair. For all intents, this warranty claim was instigated within the warranty period. The customer was not satisfied that it had been resolved by the dealer and the claim was on-going till the box failure.

In all cases I know of (and that is thousands) warranty investigation is the responsibility of the manufacturer, and doesn't get charged to the customer. Only the repair is chargeable if the failure is deemed to be the customers fault.

This case should not be looked on as a court case. in those cases it's diferent and the customer would have to foot the investigation bill.

This case should be looked on as a warranty investigation, primarily because the gearbox fault was reported within the warranty period.

On the face of it this gearbox began to fail within the warranty period. (if the faults are deemmed to be related).

If the two faults are un-related then the customer will be left with the costs.

[AndysR]

Originally Posted by Nuisance

On the first point, from a claim point of view, the fact that a gear shift fault was reported within warranty and not fixed is VERY important. If the failure can be traced back to this fault, and is not abuse then it IS a warranty repair. For all intents, this warranty claim was instigated within the warranty period. The customer was not satisfied that it had been resolved by the dealer and the claim was on-going till the box failure.

In all cases I know of (and that is thousands) warranty investigation is the responsibility of the manufacturer, and doesn't get charged to the customer. Only the repair is chargeable if the failure is deemed to be the customers fault.

This case should not be looked on as a court case. in those cases it's diferent and the customer would have to foot the investigation bill.

This case should be looked on as a warranty investigation, primarily because the gearbox fault was reported within the warranty period.

On the face of it this gearbox began to fail within the warranty period. (if the faults are deemmed to be related).

If the two faults are un-related then the customer will be left with the costs.

After thinking about it after reading your post what you have written appears to be logical and I agree, will be interesting to see what happens but essentially the owner needs to dig his heals in to get a result.