Warranty Repair Failed Outside Warranty

jellybeard999 · 7 Jul 2018 at 13:48

Gf bought a 18 month old Peugeot 208 from a franchised dealer. It went in for a warranty repair a few months after buying it in August 2016 as it was leaking oil. The crankshaft oil seal was replaced under warranty free of charge. This is now leaking again.

The car is no longer under warranty, but as this fault was reported under warranty and the repair was unsuccessful, should it be covered?

Got the car booked in with the dealer next friday who say they will need Peugeot to agree if it's covered or not and would like to be prepared if they don't agree to fix.

I don't think this is a wear and tear or service item.

BUDFORCE · 7 Jul 2018 at 14:33

You could kick off if they say no, threaten to complain to trading standards etc. Although I'd go in polite and nice first, never go in too hard early they will just think you are a dick and won't want to help you.

Weird that seal sent again though, could potentially try and argue it wasnt done correctly in the first place, or the cause of the issue was not correctly identified and resolved the first time.

Edit: might be worth having a Google trawl of this problem to see if it is a common fault.

vanandjuanunited · 7 Jul 2018 at 14:51

How old is the car - two years seems a bit long to argue the repair wasnt completed correctly

Has servicing been carried out as needed/required

jellybeard999 · 7 Jul 2018 at 14:57

Yes, I'm intending to do a bit more googling.

I'm going to see what they say first before getting into any arguments, but my view is it wasn't repaired properly in the first place

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 15:10

jellybeard999 said:
Yes, I'm intending to do a bit more googling.

I'm going to see what they say first before getting into any arguments, but my view is it wasn't repaired properly in the first place

It lasted longer than the factory part though?

kindai · 7 Jul 2018 at 15:25

Yup, not fit for purpose / job not done to an acceptable standard. I dont think anyone would expect to be replacing it again after less than 2 years.

Whats the cost of the work to have it done?

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 15:27

kindai said:
Yup, not fit for purpose / job not done to an acceptable standard.

He didn't pay for the work so he surely has no rights to redress years later?

jellybeard999 · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:17

[TW]Fox said:
It lasted longer than the factory part though?

But the original factory part should still be fine now really. If it was faulty in warranty, surely the repair was not fit for purpose? They acknowledged it shouldn't have broken after 2 years, so why should the same not also apply to the replacement?

kindai said:
Yup, not fit for purpose / job not done to an acceptable standard. I dont think anyone would expect to be replacing it again after less than 2 years.

Whats the cost of the work to have it done?

Original invoice is around £400 at dealer labour rates. The part is only a few quid.

[TW]Fox said:
He didn't pay for the work so he surely has no rights to redress years later?

What does that have to do with anything? The fault was reported in warranty and remains. If the fault was new, fair enough, but i think it's the same thing again. Would you expect to have to replace this part every 2 years? It's not a service item or consumable! If it was on the original part now i'd pay up, but i don't think replacing the same parts year on year is something you'd expect to have to do on a 4 year old car.

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:21

jellybeard999 said:
But the original factory part should still be fine now really. If it was faulty in warranty, surely the repair was not fit for purpose? They acknowledged it shouldn't have broken after 2 years, so why should the same not also apply to the replacement?

You didn't pay them to fix it so there is no fitness for purpose claim against the repair surely?

jpaul · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:25

google says there was a crankshaft related recall http://www.208ownersclub.co.uk/forum/208-1-2vti-crankshaft-recall_topic1152.html , for 1.2's ....
whether this was a corollary ?

jellybeard999 · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:27

[TW]Fox said:
You didn't pay them to fix it so there is no fitness for purpose claim against the repair surely?

But by that logic, no one would be held accountable for any warranty repairs and they can just bodge them :confused:

Customer - My Ferrari engine sounds odd

Ferrari - Your Ferrari has an engine fault sir, we've replaced it with an old lawnmower engine we had lying around and it now drives ok.

Customer - But it only goes 3mph

Ferrari - Sorry sir, it's a warranty repair. We can fit a Ferrari engine back in, but it'll be £50

Customer - :eek:

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:47

Well no because the warranty will continue to cover further faults as long as it's in force. Having work done under warranty doesn't extend the warranty for that part unless you've paid towards it.

You've not paid anyone to do any work on the car so therefore under law I cannot see how you have a claim for unfit for purpose. You've not paid for it.

Your only chance would be to attempt to link it to the purchase of a car but an oil leak after several years of ownership doesn't sound like it's of unmerchantable quality?

kindai · 7 Jul 2018 at 16:58

[TW]Fox said:
Well no because the warranty will continue to cover further faults as long as it's in force. Having work done under warranty doesn't extend the warranty for that part unless you've paid towards it.

You've not paid anyone to do any work on the car so therefore under law I cannot see how you have a claim for unfit for purpose. You've not paid for it.

Your only chance would be to attempt to link it to the purchase of a car but an oil leak after several years of ownership doesn't sound like it's of unmerchantable quality?

The part used was either of unsatisfactory quality, the repair wasnt up to standard or the fix was ineffective.

All 3 options should not leave the customer out of pocket, and especially not need a cam oil seal change every 2 years.

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 18:52

kindai said:
The part used was either of unsatisfactory quality, the repair wasnt up to standard or the fix was ineffective.

And therefore the purchaser, if they are a consumer, would likely have a claim under law.

Who was the purchaser of the part and associated labour?

paradigm · 7 Jul 2018 at 19:01

[TW]Fox said:
And therefore the purchaser, if they are a consumer, would likely have a claim under law.

Who was the purchaser of the part and associated labour?

By proxy, by choosing to purchase a car that has a warranty (and thus paying more), the owner?

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 19:02

paradigm said:
By proxy, by choosing to purchase a car that has a warranty (and thus paying more), the owner?

A warranty isn't part of your statutory rights though.

Dav4 · 7 Jul 2018 at 19:11

Why do people still buy Peugeot’s :eek:

some of the ridiculous faults and repairs you hear are beyond a joke on newish cars.

Diagro · 7 Jul 2018 at 19:20

So.. nearly two years have passed? Your having a laugh

kindai · 7 Jul 2018 at 19:27

[TW]Fox said:
And therefore the purchaser, if they are a consumer, would likely have a claim under law.

Who was the purchaser of the part and associated labour?

It might of been zero rate labour but still the gf....

The part is not a service item, it should, ideally, last the life of the car, or a damn sight many more years than it has.

[TW]Fox · 7 Jul 2018 at 20:04

No, it was the vehicle manufacturer who bought the part and paid for it to be fitted...

The vehicle is warranted to be free from defects for 3 years. Outside of this period you must rely on your statutory rights if the manufacturer doesn't offer goodwill and as the op didn't pay for the repair I can't see that he has any.

His only case in my opinion is the original car purchase - is it reasonable to expect a 4 year old car to need an oil seal replacement. The warranty replacement is a red herring in my view.

Warranty Repair Failed Outside Warranty

Sgarrista

Sgarrista

Sgarrista