Information: ETM Court Case

[Ambiesda]

"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."

There is a barrister in London who specialises in this type of claim. He is expensive, but just about guarantees to get a result, even if the normal 1 year guarantee period is expired. He was on TV on one of the consumer rights progs' about a year ago. He stated that if people in the UK complained more, or used the law as it should be used, then we would not be suffering from the shoddy treatment we get from manufacturers of substandard goods.


Well done Andy.

Regards

Malky

[stephen-in-hull]

Great work, Andy.

I run too old a Volvo to be personally affected by this issue (until perhaps 2031).

I have three points to raise:

Firstly I'm disappointed that the directors of the VOC have decided not to get involved in this battle with Volvo. The sodality of a club like ours ought to extend to matters of fundamental principle, like this.

Secondly, the unreliability and haphazardly short life of the ETM is quite obviously related to either mis-specification of the rotary resistor by Volvo as OE specifier/purchaser, or inadequacies in its performance in normal duty. For a Volvo main dealer and retailer to find acceptable a failure rate of 6.59% is ludicrous. (Incidentally 40 is not 6.59% of 1,172, it is actually only 3.41% according to my calculation.) A major change from traditional Bowden wires, push rods and simple mechanical linkages that have been tried and tested over the last century, and to go to dangfangled "fly by wire" electronics that are clearly not up to the job is simply bad engineering, bad commercial practice and bad marketing. And at £700 a throw daylight robbery.

Thirdly, if Volvo seeks to sell to the world, why can't each territory be treated with equality? Or is it that the liability consciousness of our litigation-happy trans-Atlantic cousins is what sharpens their corporate minds to allow concessions there?

Quite simply everyone affected by this issue should follow Andy's example, without exageration or hyperbole, and give every seller of Volvo cars firstly the opportunity to make redress, or face similar judgement in the County Courts.

Andy, you ought also to send details of this to Private Eye. Although it is seen by many as a scurrilous rag, it does publish serious corporate incompetances and loves to see justice being done. It also has an exceptionally high quality readership in monied professionals, including many of m'learned friends. Airing the ETM case there to Volvo purchasing readers would further embarrass the Volvo suits.

Private Eye's Email address is

strobes@privateeye.co.uk

And not forgetting that arse Clarkson.

Oh, and if the defendents are slow in coughing up, follow through. There's nothing like sending in the bailiffs to sharpen minds.

Keep up the good work, and don't forget to keep us posted on how things go. Thanks again.

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

Originally Posted by p.swan

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.

According to the following topic Volvo knew about this issue in 2005:
Linky....
They knew in so much as they admited there was a problem.
Take it as read, they would have known there was an issue long before they actually admited there was one.
From that you can infer that Volvo Corporation were aware that there were certain issues.

And anyway, from the case above, you do not really need to prove that the dealer knew there was an issue or not.
The sold that car on the basis it would last for years: it won't!
There is a fundamental flaw in the construction of the vehicle: thus not fit for purpose.

However, should you experience problems (or should that be when?) then you will need to get it fixed, and then - if it is not done for free - pay and sue.
But if need be get some legal advice - CAB or paid expert.

Des. . .

A very valid point to raise to Volvo. We see Amazons, 240s, 700 and many other production years cars on the highway after decades of use. How many of these have had such expensive and 'catastrophic' parts failures? I would hazard a guess few! What I am getting at here is that Volvo made a decision in 1999 to change/modify the throttle system.
The 'modification' was not time proven in so much as the part used was inferior to the usual stringent quality systems Volvo employ. The failure of this part which has been 'determined' by the US to require replacement though emissions issues, is in fact dangerous and thereby compromising the very foundation mission statement Volvo have traded on - SAFETY.
Here in the UK we see product recalls for all manners of quality and build failure. More importantly those affecting the health of children are totally withdrawn or replaced/refunded. Most people buy Volvos because they want them to protect their family. Majority of people can ill afford new Volvos, so settle for second hand. Not all come from a main dealer.
There is a serious issue here for Volvo to attend to in a manner other than beating around the bush and giving 'negotiated' or 'discretionary' discounts for replacement units. I would happily pay £200 for a part to be replaced on my car. For 4 years Volvo (Ford) made profit on the sales of cars with safety as the main selling point. Many of those who bought new have undoubtedly sold their cars on, and those who haven't are now paying big money for a part to be replaced.
So come on Volvo, best you can do is replace F.O.C. or worst for me is offer to replace for £200.

[Glen Morangie]

Originally Posted by arvs31260

How many of these have had such expensive and 'catastrophic' parts failures? I would hazard a guess few! What I am getting at here is that Volvo made a decision in 1999 to change/modify the throttle system.
The 'modification' was not time proven in so much as the part used was inferior to the usual stringent quality systems Volvo employ.

But surely based on that reasoning I could claim for new tyres, based on the fact that if manufacturers had stuck with the original tried and tested solid rubber design, instead of opting for pneumatic variants, they would have lasted the life of the car.........?

I'm not defending Volvo here, just trying to demonstrate that the reasoning is not as straightforward as it might seem.

One could argue that. But It is a known and proven fact that pneumatics are better than solid. But use a cheap pneumatic and it won't give the performance of an expensive one. However, tyres are catalogued as 'consumables' as plugs, filters and similar parts which are at 'consumable' acceptable prices.
The ETM was advancement in technology as 'drive/fly by wire' has become a pretty accepted throttle system where ECU engine management is par for the course.
A carb is a serviceable part. One can modify the engine with a different carb to get more power, but at some cost to the manufacturers designed performance. The throttle cable can wear and break, but that is a cheap part and effectively a 'consumable'.
The whole thing about technology is that we design, improve and utilise to benefit in some way shape or form.
Here, I am saying that Volvo have implemented a design change which in its component design, stability and integrity has fallen well below the norm for Volvo. Volvo are big boys in the motor world, not timid children or those hanging on the edge of bankruptcy. There is a problem which affects the performance of a vehicle within their range. There is a serious risk to the occupants of the vehicle should failure take place on a busy highway.
If your pneumatic tyre fails while doing 60 on the highway, you have an opportunity to manouevre safely to the verge/hard shoulder without the car behind driving into your back seat. However, if you go from 60 to 15 miles per hour and you have no control over it, the vehicle behind will be inviting you to see your front radiator grille from inside the engine bay!
Come on Volvo, safety first, be a man and admit to the error second.

[Glen Morangie]

Originally Posted by arvs31260

Here, I am saying that Volvo have implemented a design change which in its component design, stability and integrity has fallen well below the norm for Volvo.

I think that's a more convincing argument - and I obviously don't really want solid tyres, just pointing out that the fact there's been a change might not be enough to establish liability.

Volvo ought to take a view here, as I doubt the cost of the replacement part (in real terms) is anything like it's quoted price to the consumer, I wonder how much they cost from the manufacturer.

Nordic quoted me £325 which is new with exchange (i.e. they want the old unit back). So if a Volvo garage are charging £600 plus for fitting inclusive of part it's a rip off. A manufacturer/manufacturers agent profiting more at the expense of the victim of a manufacturers failing!

[Glen Morangie]

Originally Posted by arvs31260

Nordic quoted me £325 which is new with exchange (i.e. they want the old unit back). So if a Volvo garage are charging £600 plus for fitting inclusive of part it's a rip off. A manufacturer/manufacturers agent profiting more at the expense of the victim of a manufacturers failing!

The more I think about it the more it seems odd to be doing the cleaning etc, as it increases the overall cost if the ETM is eventually replaced.

I think the dealer/Volvo recover the cost of the clean and software update from the eventual replacement of the ETM at £600 plus.