Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen transmission defect (5)

[Derek Uzzell]

davethevibes - 2009-12-12 6:28 PM

 

...Tell you what, I wish you'd been around when I came to sell it!...

 

It would have been no use trying to sell your Amethyst to me as I don't particularly rate Auto-Sleepers as a motorhome manufacturer. I'm also not a huge fan of Transits either, but the Hobby was cheap and suited my requirements and I've a phobia for any vehicle that starts life in Italy or France.

 

I can lift my fully-loaded Hobby using the standard Ford jack - it's not straightforward, but it proved possible when both rear-tyre valves failed.

[dshague]

nether will i .we don't have a dodgy Fiat gearbox now thanks  to ANDY and Fiat  

[webbocj]

want to put money on it!!!

chris

[Lord Raindrop]

 

Brian at the top of this page has pointed out quite correctly that the dealer is the one responsible to correct your vehicle.

 

It also astounds me why individuals believe FIAT will do the right thing. They have no obligation to do so !

 

Those who found they had duff vehicles should have returned them to the dealer the first day they found a fault. Once a vehicle has been driven for a reasonable distance it can be said that you have accepted the vehicle in that condition.

 

 

 

 

[GypsyTom]

Lord Raindrop - 2009-12-12 11:48 PMBrian at the top of this page has pointed out quite correctly that the dealer is the one responsible to correct your vehicle.It also astounds me why individuals believe FIAT will do the right thing. They have no obligation to do so !Those who found they had duff vehicles should have returned them to the dealer the first day they found a fault. Once a vehicle has been driven for a reasonable distance it can be said that you have accepted the vehicle in that condition.

This is not strictly correct. If you sue the dealer in the County Court, and win, the dealer would then sue Fiat and, because the judge has already ruled that the vehicle is faulty, the dealer would have little difficulty in obtaining judgement against Fiat.

In all of this saga, I find it hard to believe that not one purchaser of these vehicles hasn't sued the supplying dealer. 

If it were me, I would inform the dealer that I am suing him, not because I think that it's his fault, but because this is my only way of obtaining a legal judgement and that in turn, he can then use the evidence in my case to sue Fiat. I think it's important to keep your dealer on your side and make it clear that it's not personal.

[rupert123]

GypsyTom - 2009-12-13 10:29 AM

Lord Raindrop - 2009-12-12 11:48 PMBrian at the top of this page has pointed out quite correctly that the dealer is the one responsible to correct your vehicle.It also astounds me why individuals believe FIAT will do the right thing. They have no obligation to do so !Those who found they had duff vehicles should have returned them to the dealer the first day they found a fault. Once a vehicle has been driven for a reasonable distance it can be said that you have accepted the vehicle in that condition.

This is not strictly correct. If you sue the dealer in the County Court, and win, the dealer would then sue Fiat and, because the judge has already ruled that the vehicle is faulty, the dealer would have little difficulty in obtaining judgement against Fiat.

In all of this saga, I find it hard to believe that not one purchaser of these vehicles hasn't sued the supplying dealer. 

If it were me, I would inform the dealer that I am suing him, not because I think that it's his fault, but because this is my only way of obtaining a legal judgement and that in turn, he can then use the evidence in my case to sue Fiat. I think it's important to keep your dealer on your side and make it clear that it's not personal.

Once again this thread groans across old ground. What do you go to county court about now, Fiat has agreed a problem with the 2.3 six speed and is fixing. A year ago you could resort to the courts, as indeed anyone who has a 3.0 litre still could but it is a simplistic view with a very doubtfull outcome. You take on the dealer, what about exactly, for a problem the manufacturer states does not exist. If your gearbox or clutch blows that is a little differant but a shudder in reverse not much chance I would think. The expense would be large with not many willing to take the risk and in the meantime, perhaps years no van to use. Talk is easy for people who do not have to do it, reality is a little differant.

[GypsyTom]

The main point of my post was to point out that Fiat does have an obligation, albeit one down the line, and that, if you can persuade a judge that your vehicle is unsatisfactory and he gives judgement to that effect, the dealer will then find it easy to sue Fiat for compensation for whatever costs he's incurred, which may well be the loss he has made in refunding the purchase price of the 'van, which he now cannot sell.

If I had a Fiat and my gearbox juddered, I would take expert advice from an independent engineer and if he was prepared to state that it is faulty I would sue immediately the dealer told me that he couldn't do anything about it.

Of course if the independent engineer cannot state that it is a fault and that it's a characteristic that reasonable people should be prepared to put up with, then you've no choice but to throw yourself upon the mercies of Fiat.

I can see no reason why you should lose the use of the 'van during this period of litigation.

Has anyone actually tried litigation against the supplying dealer?

[Corky 8]

May I ask Why the converter,s have been left out of this Saga, It was their choice In the First place on which Vehicle to build their bodies/conversions,and we place our faith in them as Expert,s in their field to choose the right Chassis /base on which do so, they may well say their expertise lay in Converting not in Machanics,but is it not the whole package they are selling,which we buy,My own Motorhome had not and still hasn,t any motor manufactorers emblems/badges etc on the body to identify whose engine is installed, yet when I contacted them over the reverse gearing being to high a ratio I was informed to contact Fiat, a bit like if our washing machine motor burns out under guarantee ,AEG telling me to contact the electric motor maker, Just a thought.

[Corky 8]

twas not I :-D

[marcob]

Hi.

In reply to Davethevibes, and others.

What has Ford punturers got to do with Fiat transmission defets?

I have owened Ford Amethyst's for over ten years, the first for four years and my current one for nearly seven. I have never had a punture with these vans, but probably will now having said that.

As for bunny hopping I have never experienced this whatever it means, as the ride is good except on rough roads. as with any van.

There is not much wrong with Auto-Sleepers. I am sorry they are not building on the Ford at the present time. I would buy another Ford, hopefully with a Auto-Sleeper body.

 

Regards Marcob

[Brian Kirby]

As stated above, if the van (the goods) is faulty (and this has a wider context than reversing judderers, it is equally true for all defects), it is the dealer (the trader) who is legally responsible for putting it right.  That is what UK law currently says.  It is, therefore, to the dealer you (the consumer) should present the defect.  If you do not do this, and the fixes offered by others, probably under guarantee, fail to satisfy you, you may forfeit some of your rights against the dealer.  I cannot stress too strongly the importance of taking the defect to the dealer and not to the guarantor's garage - or wherever - in the first instance.

It seems many dealers have professed not to know of this general defect.  Might that not be because few owners have taken the vehicles back to the dealer, and asked him to fix the fault?  It seems it would be difficult for the dealers to claim not to know about this, if they had a string of owners pouring into their showrooms complaining about it.

It matters not if the dealer than takes the van to a Fiat repairer, or asks you to do so (though you are under no obligation to do this yourself).  The point is that he is notified, and that the notification should be confirmed to him in writing.  So should the outcome, whether satisfactory or otherwise.  If unsatisfactory, the dealer should, again, be asked whet he intends to do.

Why?  Firstly, because if you don't tell him the goods are faulty, he can't be expected to know.  Secondly, because, as it is his responsibility to make good the defect, it his decision how he will do so.  If you don't tell him of the defect, you deny him the choice as to how to make the repairs, and he may later use this to evade responsibility for the consequences.  This is not a joke, it is what you need to do to ensure you retain to the maximum your legal rights.  Forget, for a moment, your cynical doubts as to whether the dealer may step in and get the defect remedied instead of sending you to a Fiat garage, this is about you and your legal rights, and not about the dealer.

Had the dealers been met by this continuing pressure from dissatisfied customers, it is reasonable to assume they would have begun claiming back up the line.  The grumbles would have got to the converters, and from them to Fiat.

None of this would have required dealers to be sued, but it would have ensured they were under no doubts as to the level of dissatisfaction with their products.

The prospect of suing is less straightforward, and for that reason it seems few dealers have really felt threatened by this possibility.  Were it otherwise, I think results would have been achieved far more quickly.

The process of suing the dealer is not so straightforward as some would have you believe.  That is why I think a large dealer who had supplied a number of defective vans should have been singled out, and jointly sued by his customers using one van as the test case.  That way, the precedent could have been established, with the cost risk shared among the group.  However, it did not happen and, as Rupert has said, that moment is now in the past.

The main problems with suing over a faulty motorhome are cost and complexity.  Forget, for the moment, outright rejection.  My information from Trading Standards is that, where new motor vehicles are concerned, this is very difficult to achieve, and not generally worth pursuing.  The issue raised by Tom, of "acceptance", being the main problem.  Anyone wishing to try to reject must do so, and then stop using the van, almost immediately they have taken ownership of it.  It seems not be be dependent on when you may, reasonably, have become aware of the defect, but merely on whether you have used the goods.  Retailers won't argue too hard if you seek to reject a defective pair of shoes, but this changes somewhat when the defective goods are a £40,000 motorhome!

So, one cannot, in practical terms, reject.  What one has to do, therefore, is press the dealer for remedy.  If he cannot make good the defect, to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner, within a reasonable period of time, and if he does not volunteer compensation, or give your money back, you may wish to take him to court. 

But which court?  There is no such thing as a small claims court.  All hearings go to the County Court.  There are three procedures, each referred to as "tracks".  There is a "small claims track", limited to cases involving claims for under £5,000, intended for relatively simple matters.  There is a "fast track", generally reserved for claims between £5,000 and £25,000, and there is "multi track", for claims exceeding £25,000 or considered to be complex.  The court - in effect the judge - will ask for details of the claim and will then decide which "track" is appropriate.  The problem, under present legislation, is that as motorhomes are costly and relatively expensive, claims involving them are likely to be allocated to the fast, or multi, tracks, and multi track claims may be referred to be heard in the High Court, and not in the County Court.

So, the more you spend on your goods, the greater the cost risk to you of trying to get legal redress when all else has failed.  Since the object of the legislation is consumers - you and me - this strikes me as perverse.  If we buy cheap goods, the loss of which would be little more than an irritant, the legislation works well and we can generally get repair or replacement, or our money back, quite easily.  If, on the other hand, we sink a great chunk of our life's accumulated assets into a purchase, the process of getting redress becomes infinitely more costly and risky, at just the point when we are in greatest need of simple, low cost, resolution.  It is all very unsatisfactory. 

The best remedy will be a change in the law so that all consumers are treated in the same way irrespective of the costs of their purchases.  If you agree, how about writing to your MP, or the the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Kevin Brennan, at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, pointing out this anomaly and asking for a better system to be introduced?  I have.

This will happen again, largely because the dealers and the converters know how risky and difficult it is for individual consumers to take them to court, and consequently do not take their consumer obligations as seriously as they should.  It won't stop until there is political pressure for change, and that pressure can only come from the likes of us.  No-one else is going to do it for us!

Sorry it is so long, I couldn't make it shorter!

[Bob Elswood]

Brian Kirby - 2009-12-13 4:51 PM

As stated above, if the van (the goods) is faulty (and this has a wider context than reversing judderers, it is equally true for all defects), it is the dealer (the trader) who is legally responsible for putting it right.  That is what UK law currently says.  It is, therefore, to the dealer you (the consumer) should present the defect.  If you do not do this, and the fixes offered by others, probably under guarantee, fail to satisfy you, you may forfeit some of your rights against the dealer.  I cannot stress too strongly the importance of taking the defect to the dealer and not to the guarantor's garage - or wherever - in the first instance.

It seems many dealers have professed not to know of this general defect.  Might that not be because few owners have taken the vehicles back to the dealer, and asked him to fix the fault?  It seems it would be difficult for the dealers to claim not to know about this, if they had a string of owners pouring into their showrooms complaining about it.

It matters not if the dealer than takes the van to a Fiat repairer, or asks you to do so (though you are under no obligation to do this yourself).  The point is that he is notified, and that the notification should be confirmed to him in writing.  So should the outcome, whether satisfactory or otherwise.  If unsatisfactory, the dealer should, again, be asked whet he intends to do.

Why?  Firstly, because if you don't tell him the goods are faulty, he can't be expected to know.  Secondly, because, as it is his responsibility to make good the defect, it his decision how he will do so.  If you don't tell him of the defect, you deny him the choice as to how to make the repairs, and he may later use this to evade responsibility for the consequences.  This is not a joke, it is what you need to do to ensure you retain to the maximum your legal rights.  Forget, for a moment, your cynical doubts as to whether the dealer may step in and get the defect remedied instead of sending you to a Fiat garage, this is about you and your legal rights, and not about the dealer.

Had the dealers been met by this continuing pressure from dissatisfied customers, it is reasonable to assume they would have begun claiming back up the line.  The grumbles would have got to the converters, and from them to Fiat.

None of this would have required dealers to be sued, but it would have ensured they were under no doubts as to the level of dissatisfaction with their products.

The prospect of suing is less straightforward, and for that reason it seems few dealers have really felt threatened by this possibility.  Were it otherwise, I think results would have been achieved far more quickly.

The process of suing the dealer is not so straightforward as some would have you believe.  That is why I think a large dealer who had supplied a number of defective vans should have been singled out, and jointly sued by his customers using one van as the test case.  That way, the precedent could have been established, with the cost risk shared among the group.  However, it did not happen and, as Rupert has said, that moment is now in the past.

The main problems with suing over a faulty motorhome are cost and complexity.  Forget, for the moment, outright rejection.  My information from Trading Standards is that, where new motor vehicles are concerned, this is very difficult to achieve, and not generally worth pursuing.  The issue raised by Tom, of "acceptance", being the main problem.  Anyone wishing to try to reject must do so, and then stop using the van, almost immediately they have taken ownership of it.  It seems not be be dependent on when you may, reasonably, have become aware of the defect, but merely on whether you have used the goods.  Retailers won't argue too hard if you seek to reject a defective pair of shoes, but this changes somewhat when the defective goods are a £40,000 motorhome!

So, one cannot, in practical terms, reject.  What one has to do, therefore, is press the dealer for remedy.  If he cannot make good the defect, to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner, within a reasonable period of time, and if he does not volunteer compensation, or give your money back, you may wish to take him to court. 

But which court?  There is no such thing as a small claims court.  All hearings go to the County Court.  There are three procedures, each referred to as "tracks".  There is a "small claims track", limited to cases involving claims for under £5,000, intended for relatively simple matters.  There is a "fast track", generally reserved for claims between £5,000 and £25,000, and there is "multi track", for claims exceeding £25,000 or considered to be complex.  The court - in effect the judge - will ask for details of the claim and will then decide which "track" is appropriate.  The problem, under present legislation, is that as motorhomes are costly and relatively expensive, claims involving them are likely to be allocated to the fast, or multi, tracks, and multi track claims may be referred to be heard in the High Court, and not in the County Court.

So, the more you spend on your goods, the greater the cost risk to you of trying to get legal redress when all else has failed.  Since the object of the legislation is consumers - you and me - this strikes me as perverse.  If we buy cheap goods, the loss of which would be little more than an irritant, the legislation works well and we can generally get repair or replacement, or our money back, quite easily.  If, on the other hand, we sink a great chunk of our life's accumulated assets into a purchase, the process of getting redress becomes infinitely more costly and risky, at just the point when we are in greatest need of simple, low cost, resolution.  It is all very unsatisfactory. 

The best remedy will be a change in the law so that all consumers are treated in the same way irrespective of the costs of their purchases.  If you agree, how about writing to your MP, or the the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Kevin Brennan, at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, pointing out this anomaly and asking for a better system to be introduced?  I have.

This will happen again, largely because the dealers and the converters know how risky and difficult it is for individual consumers to take them to court, and consequently do not take their consumer obligations as seriously as they should.  It won't stop until there is political pressure for change, and that pressure can only come from the likes of us.  No-one else is going to do it for us!

Sorry it is so long, I couldn't make it shorter!

Blimey Brian, I can't argue with all that !!My plan is to vote with me cheque book and not touch Fiat or Peugeot with a barge pole for a few years , if ever again!!My current 2.00 ltr HDI ( 2004 ) is fine but I will not consider upgrading in the near future to another Fiat or Peugeot. I have great sympathy with the unfortunate people that have been involved with this current fiasco!!As someone in a previous post has indicated get on to the dealers 'cos it is them that are your first course of complaint!!I would be asking serious questions of 'em if the goods they have sold me were not 'fit for purpose!'

[dshague]

thank you for that brian  .my experience of taking a double glazing company to high court and winning was high costs for  barrister, solicitor, and expert reports  it took two years and was very stressful .

[moyne]

Lord Raindrop - 2009-12-12 11:48 PM

 

 

Brian at the top of this page has pointed out quite correctly that the dealer is the one responsible to correct your vehicle.

 

It also astounds me why individuals believe FIAT will do the right thing. They have no obligation to do so !

 

Those who found they had duff vehicles should have returned them to the dealer the first day they found a fault. Once a vehicle has been driven for a reasonable distance it can be said that you have accepted the vehicle in that condition.

 

 

 

 

This not actually true ! yes you have the right to refuse the goods and the period is for the period specified under the sale of goods act !

What is a reasonable period ? Could it not also be said that the dealer has the right to repair the offending vehicle.

The sale of goods act states

Repair , Replace or your money back.... you don't get to choose !

In my case the problem was discovered and reported two weeks after receiving the vehicle.... !

I am one of those poor buggers who bought a runt ! Anyway there is a cure and it's called the law ! and what is right !

[Brambles]

Try and get the right thread this time!!!!

 

What is happening about all the older x250's which have not been modified yet along with the second hand ones out of warramty etc, are they being rectified by Fiat if they judder? Surely this is where the fight for getting them updated out of warranty free of charge should now be concentrated. Certainly a fee for the wear on clutch due to mileage would may be appropriate to cover wear and tear, but Fiat should stand the cost for the rest of the mods. And of course the 3.0 juddder continues but is not clear if it is 'normal 'vibration' or indeed judder. This does not alter the fact the gear ratio is still not suitable for safe reversing judder or no judder.

[Derek Uzzell]

I believe Fiat(UK) issued an official pronouncement a while back regarding the warranty position.

[rupert123]

Brambles - 2009-12-14 8:52 AM

 

Try and get the right thread this time!!!!

 

What is happening about all the older x250's which have not been modified yet along with the second hand ones out of warramty etc, are they being rectified by Fiat if they judder? Surely this is where the fight for getting them updated out of warranty free of charge should now be concentrated. Certainly a fee for the wear on clutch due to mileage would may be appropriate to cover wear and tear, but Fiat should stand the cost for the rest of the mods. And of course the 3.0 juddder continues but is not clear if it is 'normal 'vibration' or indeed judder. This does not alter the fact the gear ratio is still not suitable for safe reversing judder or no judder.

 

Are their any x250 out of warrenty yet? My base warrenty is for three years, did not think any m/h based on this chassis was more than three years old.

[colinfrier]

My Burstner is June 2007 and I know there are older ones so its all very close or gone past the 3 years.

[webbocj]

I have a Knaus on an X250 and like many European convertions they only have a 2 year warranty. mine expired in June of this year, so I would think there would be a few. P.S. JUST brought mine back from a FIAT garage after road testing for continuing judder/vibration PLUS gearbox noise AFTER recent mod. 2. further improvements not looking forthcoming.

chris.

[euroserv]

Following Chris's post could I politely suggest that those contributors that have been persisting with their campaign to stifle this thread because in their opinion everything is well with 2.3 Ducato vehicles should take careful note.....

 

It is by no means over yet and there is a continuing need to advise caution to anyone that has or is contemplating the purchase of an X250 chassis.

 

Just because yours is ok it does not give you the right to belittle the genuine concerns of those that are still suffering, and if you feel the need to tell members of the forum how good your van is, I would suggest that your contributions should not be on the 'Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen transmission defect' thread but perhaps you could start one called 'I'm all right, Jack'

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

moyne - 2009-12-14 8:33 AM

Lord Raindrop - 2009-12-12 11:48 PM Brian at the top of this page has pointed out quite correctly that the dealer is the one responsible to correct your vehicle. It also astounds me why individuals believe FIAT will do the right thing. They have no obligation to do so ! Those who found they had duff vehicles should have returned them to the dealer the first day they found a fault. Once a vehicle has been driven for a reasonable distance it can be said that you have accepted the vehicle in that condition.

This not actually true ! yes you have the right to refuse the goods and the period is for the period specified under the sale of goods act ! What is a reasonable period ? Could it not also be said that the dealer has the right to repair the offending vehicle. The sale of goods act states Repair , Replace or your money back.... you don't get to choose ! In my case the problem was discovered and reported two weeks after receiving the vehicle.... ! I am one of those poor buggers who bought a runt ! Anyway there is a cure and it's called the law ! and what is right !

I need a bit of help with this, Moyne.

Lord Raindrop makes three points.  Which of them is untrue?

Under Part 5A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended,

(Where..........) the goods do not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery.

(2) If this section applies, the buyer has the right - 

(a) under and in accordance with section 48B below, to require the seller to repair or replace the goods, or

(b) under and in accordance with section 48C below - 

(i) to require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or

(ii) to rescind the contract with regard to the goods in question.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date.

Note, it is the buyer who has the right, not the seller.

[Guest Tracker]

With respect guys, all this deeply meaningful discussion of the sale of goods act and the continual reprinting of lengthy prior postings, whilst very relevant in many ways, is running off topic somewhat and risks clogging up the Faulty Fiat thread enough to put off new readers.

 

No offence intended.

[rupert123]

Tracker - 2009-12-14 4:00 PM

 

With respect guys, all this deeply meaningful discussion of the sale of goods act and the continual reprinting of lengthy prior postings, whilst very relevant in many ways, is running off topic somewhat and risks clogging up the Faulty Fiat thread enough to put off new readers.

 

No offence intended.

 

For once I tend to agree with you Rich, however as the complaints about the X250 are rapidly drying up now and if it is felt their is a need to keep things going something has to be posted on the thread. Much is going over old ground and it would perhaps be good if before posting a quick look back to see if it has been covered before, which it will have been. Anything new or any fresh complaint about the modifications, three litre box etc are the only way forward. To just keep going over old ground is going nowhere and any newcomer will wonder what all the fuss is about.

[bobalobs]

To get back on topic last week I tested a recent modified gearbox from birth 2.3 6 speed against a year old similar model. Reversing up a steepish hill in a straight line there is a significant improvement but when it came to trying to backround a 90 degree corner on such a slope the new van though clearly better than the one year old was not as smooth as our 8 yearold 2.8 Jtd. So much for progress but in all other respects the x250 is a delight to drive. So 2 years after the original deposit and just before the Vat rate goes up to17.5% or more( !!) we have finalised the order. Some will say we are mad but how much of our life do we spend backing round steep 90 degree bends!!?

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2009-12-14 4:00 PM With respect guys, all this deeply meaningful discussion of the sale of goods act and the continual reprinting of lengthy prior postings, whilst very relevant in many ways, is running off topic somewhat and risks clogging up the Faulty Fiat thread enough to put off new readers. No offence intended.

Rebuke accepted!  My intention has been to try to point out to those with defective vehicles, reversing judder included, where they need to turn for legal help, if that is what they want.  I confess I have become more than a little frustrated reading the continual misunderstandings about who has actual legal liability for the defective vans.  It seemed some wished to try to sue Fiat (which would be liable to prove expensive and fruitless), instead of suing their dealer - where they at least stand some chance of success.  I shall now refrain!  :-)