Flaking paint and Fiat

[tof]

tui - 2010-10-22 6:50 PM

 

I have found flaking paint on the roof of our Fiat van based motorhome after a warning from another motorhomer. Unfortunately our motorhome is now out of warranty. I have contacted Fiat and await a decision.

Does anyone have experience of dealing with Fiat over this matter?

Are there any tips which might result in a successful outcome?

 

We have flaking paint on our Fiat Ducato where the overcab (monocoque) meets the doors/windscreen. Fortunately we are in our warranty period and our dealer is going to pay to have it sorted at the garage of our choice along with some paint which is chipped off the bottom of both doors (due to the doors not being aligned properly and scraping on the fairing)

 

The only dealings we have had with trying to claim regarding Fiat is.... we had our gearbox seize up in Germany this year, apparently the garage that did the second fix for the gearbox put it back together wrong, made a hole by tightening a screw in the wrong place, causing the gearbox oil to be dumped under pressure when driving. This invalidated the warranty. We spent a fortune on phone calls to Fiat and to cut a very long story short they just passed all of this off to the garage involved (Fiat approved/recommended) the only way we can reclaim our loss is through a small claims court. So no trust or hope in Fiat from us. :-( :-(

[lennyhb]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-11-27 6:26 PM

JudgeMental - 2010-11-27 1:38 PM

Brian Kirby - 2010-11-27 11:34 AM

Mike88 - 2010-11-27 8:17 AM ............. Why spend many thousands on a panel van to look like white van man?

I find this last comment unacceptably white-van-man-ist!  :-D

Agreed...I dont think the hymer car 322 sportline, which looks the business in white, would ever be mistaken for a gypo mobile....anyway it is a silver Adria I am getting :D

You could always have bought a cheap white one and covered it with silver duct-tape. Think of the extra protection against scratches that would have offered and, if the paint underneath the tape had started to flake, nobody would ever have noticed. Might even have provided a bit of extra insulation.

But it would eat into the payload & M'lord would have to leave the misses at home. (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Derek Uzzell]

tof - 2010-12-02 9:27 PM

 

We have flaking paint on our Fiat Ducato where the overcab (monocoque) meets the doors/windscreen. Fortunately we are in our warranty period and our dealer is going to pay to have it sorted at the garage of our choice along with some paint which is chipped off the bottom of both doors (due to the doors not being aligned properly and scraping on the fairing)

 

The only dealings we have had with trying to claim regarding Fiat is.... we had our gearbox seize up in Germany this year, apparently the garage that did the second fix for the gearbox put it back together wrong, made a hole by tightening a screw in the wrong place, causing the gearbox oil to be dumped under pressure when driving. This invalidated the warranty. We spent a fortune on phone calls to Fiat and to cut a very long story short they just passed all of this off to the garage involved (Fiat approved/recommended) the only way we can reclaim our loss is through a small claims court. So no trust or hope in Fiat from us. :-( :-(

 

I freely admit to being no Fiat fan, but I doubt if you'd get much different treatment from other base-vehicle manufacturers.

 

As your CI is an overcab coachbuilt motorhome, I'm guessing that the paint-flaking problem at the cab/overcab join can probably be laid at CI's door. Not sure about the cab doors, but, if they were scraping against CI-added bodywork, I would have thought it was up to CI (or the CI agent) to have resolved this.

 

Similarly, if a garage screws up a task, whether or not it was Fiat approved/recommended, it's the garage that's really at fault not the base-vehicle manufacturer. Having said that, as the gearbox work was (presumably) performed under Fiat's warranty, one might have reasonably expected the work itself to carry a guarantee.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-12-03 8:49 AM ................. Similarly, if a garage screws up a task, whether or not it was Fiat approved/recommended, it's the garage that's really at fault not the base-vehicle manufacturer. Having said that, as the gearbox work was (presumably) performed under Fiat's warranty, one might have reasonably expected the work itself to carry a guarantee.

This one is interesting.  From memory, the warranty applies to work carried out in rectifying a defect, but without attracting additional warranty.  So, if a defect is rectified one month from the end of the warranty period, the effective warranty on the fix is one month.

However, where work is carried out under warranty, it is the warrantor who pays for the work.  This leaves the warrantee without a contract with the repairer, so presumably unable to claim against him under normal contract law.  This seems unreasonable.  So, was Fiat acting on behalf of the warrantee as agent, when it procured the work?  If so, as agent, Fiat surely cannot completely evade all liability for the incompetence of their contractor, who has, after all, damaged the warrantee's vehicle while carrying out work for Fiat.

So, whereas I doubt Fiat has direct liability for the consequential damage, I think they may have some indirect liability, because they acted as experts in procuring the work from an incompetent contractor.

Further, if Fiat were acting as agent on behalf of the warrantee in procuring the work, I think it may be Fiat who has to implement the legal action against the repairer, because otherwise they will have left the warrantee without legal remedy.

The problem will be proof that it was the repairer's work that caused the subsequent seizure.  From Chris's description, it seems it was not the replacement of the gears that was incompetently executed (that is to say neither the new gears nor their actual fitting were defective), but the subsequent reassembly of the gearbox.

The proof of this lies in the gearbox casing, which is presumably now in the German workshop's scrap bin.

There are two questions.  First, in the absence of a direct contract with the garage that fitted the gears, has Chris any legal basis under which to sue them?  Second, in the (presumed) absence of the gearbox casing, can Chris prove it was the UK garage that caused the fault that led to the demise of the box?

Circumstantially, events point that way (because the seizure was subsequent to their work), but it must be at least possible that the gearbox casing was itself defective, so that insertion of the offending screw merely exacerbated a latent defect.

If the garage in question refuses to accept liability, I think a talk to Chris's local Trading Standards is in order before trying to sue the garage directly.  I have a feeling that Fiat may have to be involved in some way in the proceedings, for there to be a reasonable chance of success, and contact with Fiat's legal department (possibly a solicitor's letter) may be required to get the ball rolling, in lieu of further appeals to their warranty department.

If this has already been explored with Trading Standards, I should be grateful if Chris could say what advice was received regarding the garage's/Fiat's liability for the gearbox failing.

[tof]

p>If the garage in question refuses to accept liability, I think a talk to Chris's local Trading Standards is in order before trying to sue the garage directly.  I have a feeling that Fiat may have to be involved in some way in the proceedings, for there to be a reasonable chance of success, and contact with Fiat's legal department (possibly a solicitor's letter) may be required to get the ball rolling, in lieu of further appeals to their warranty department.

If this has already been explored with Trading Standards, I should be grateful if Chris could say what advice was received regarding the garage's/Fiat's liability for the gearbox failing.

BrianJust to fill you in on the incident - Halfway across southern Germany the gearbox suddenly became very stiff when changing from 5th to 6th so I pulled into a rest area and the gearbox made a horrendous noise. Fiat Camper Assistance towed us to the nearest Fiat/Iveco dealer. The box had lost nearly all its oil and become hot, luckily it was pouring with rain which kept the temperature down. They replaced with fresh oil and ordered a new end casing which was fitted and fortunately the box internals were undamaged. Under the end casing is a part which presumably holds the shafts in place and this had been fitted the wrong way round by the UK garage so when they refitted the end casing one of the fastening bolts pinched a small hole in it causing an oil leak under pressure. The German garage were superb, they gave me pictures and the part and charged 220euros explaining that it was the UK garage's bad workmanship otherwise they would have carried out a warranty fix.I have to admit that I had not followed this up in the last month or so because I've had so much other sh*t to deal with in our lives. The last thing to happen was I wrote putting the issue to Fiat who were apologetic but passed on my letter to the offending garage here for them to respond to me direct. That was back in September and nothing has been forthcoming. Should my first move be to ring the uk garage, call on them or go direct to Trading Standards?Chris

[Brian Kirby]

Hi Chris.  My advice, for what it is worth (I have no legal background), would be to call on the garage (maybe phone first), with the pictures and a copy of the Fiat letter, speak to the boss, show him the evidence, and ask him what recompense he proposes for their mistake.  He may be sort of expecting you, but hoping you won't show, and he may be perfectly reasonable, or not.  Expecting him to make the first move is just a bit like expecting the proverbial turkey to vote for Christmas!  :-)  If he is uncooperative, I would then go to TS for advice.

I think they will advise first writing to the garage, confirming your visit, and their response, asking them to reconsider, or correct your misunderstanding of their position, within a fixed period of time, maybe 21 days.  If they do, it might be politic to visit again and deliver the letter in person, explaining that you are acting with regret, but feel they leave you no alternative.  Beyond that, it will all depend how the cookie crumbles, what TS next advise, and how far you want to push on.

However, I don't think it matters greatly which comes first: TS will only advise; they won't prosecute on your behalf, so if you feel happier talking to them first, do.  Just take all the bits and the Fiat letter with you so that they get the full picture.  Hope this helps, and good luck.