Diesel Particulate Filter fault, who is responsible?

motorguy

worried_jim wrote: »

When I worked in sales there was many an occasion a customer would come in and say I want "y" when I knew that "x" would be far suitable and may have been even cheaper. However, I soon learnt that as soon as you put that doubt into their already made up mind your sale and commission was lost. So they asked for "y" and I took the order for "y" every-time.

Oh aye. Absolutely.

They'll just walk and buy it somewhere else.

Particularly with diesels. People cant be told they arent necessarily a Great Idea.

Iceweasel

A couple of folks have mentioned either removing or disabling the DPF.


Do not even think of mentioning that to anyone - the result would be an MOT fail.


I would image that you never intended keeping the car that long anyway, but removing the DPF is a legal no-no.


This is part of the difficulty with them - up until this year there was no problem in removing the DPF or the Diesel Cat.

This years new MOT rules say that if either are missing, on a car which had them fitted when new, then it's an automatic fail.

neilmcl

Let's not forget the OP leases the car, he doesn't own it.

Caveat Emptor I'm afraid OP, it's up to you to do your own research before choosing the type of car for your needs.

motorguy

Iceweasel wrote: »

A couple of folks have mentioned either removing or disabling the DPF.


Do not even think of mentioning that to anyone - the result would be an MOT fail.


I would image that you never intended keeping the car that long anyway, but removing the DPF is a legal no-no.


This is part of the difficulty with them - up until this year there was no problem in removing the DPF or the Diesel Cat.

This years new MOT rules say that if either are missing, on a car which had them fitted when new, then it's an automatic fail.

They only check for the presence of the box itself, not the contents. Anyone who talks of "removing the DPF" is referring to the process of taking it off, cutting a hole in the top of it, removing the guts, and welding the hole back up (or battering the guts out of it) then refitting. They then program it out from the ECU.

This wont fail MOT.

Also, as you've correctly pointed out, the O/P wont have the car that long anyway.

Not condoning it for the O/P's situation, just correcting what you said

Iceweasel

motorguy wrote: »

They only check for the presence of the box itself, not the contents. Anyone who talks of "removing the DPF" is referring to the process of taking it off, cutting a hole in the top of it, removing the guts, and welding the hole back up (or battering the guts out of it) then refitting. They then program it out from the ECU.

This wont fail MOT.

Also, as you've correctly pointed out, the O/P wont have the car that long anyway.

Not condoning it for the O/P's situation, just correcting what you said

Of course you're right motorguy, removing the innards will pass a visual inspection - but just wait a year or two - checking for an operative working DPF will come soon as we are falling in line with the rest of the EU.


I don't know if that is seen as good or bad.

Prothet_of_Doom

I'd quite like a job at Mini, in customer warranty claims.

Since 2001 they have been in denial over power steering, the midlands built gearbox, the CVT gearboxes, the camchain rattle of death, the DPF's, the electrical faults.

http://www.topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/4947-mini-cooper-class-action-settlement-gets-tentative-ok/

http://www.mini2.com/forum/second-generation-faults-fixes/184402-timing-chain-destroyed-engine-bmw-warranty-joke.html

motorguy

Iceweasel wrote: »

Of course you're right motorguy, removing the innards will pass a visual inspection - but just wait a year or two - checking for an operative working DPF will come soon as we are falling in line with the rest of the EU.


I don't know if that is seen as good or bad.

Given how long it has taken them to agree on engine management lights on and airbag lights on, i cant see it coming for a while yet.

Even then, you can simply retrofit a new DPF, which are coming down in price all the time.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I haven't heard anything that refutes the position that the seller is responsible for ensuring that the product is fit for purpose. Caveat emptor has no role in modern fair trading legislation. People who say caveat emptor on the MSE site deserve a hard slap!

In this case, it is clear that the seller made no effort to raise the issue of suitability. Just because no salesman worth his salt would for fear of losing a sale, does not magically make it ok in law. This is a complicated technical issue, and it is not something you would find out by looking at it or test driving. It should be brought to everyone's attention. It is the seller's duty to do so. It's not the same as say being 6' 7" and finding out that the car is too uncomfortable to drive. If you bought a car and the engine cut out on a regular basis, you would not expect people to say "That's a well known feature of the Vectra, fancy not knowing that, live with it!" you would expect to get it fixed and if they couldn't fix it you'd expect to be compensated.

So, the starting point is that in principle the buyer has a very strong case that the vehicle is not fit for purpose. I am amazed that OFT allow the motor industry to get away with selling a product where they refuse to warrant it - essentially a prima face admission of unsuitability for the consumer market place.

Having said that, I'd agree it will be a very hard battle to win. I'm not sure of the ins and outs but I'd assume that the lease company is jointly liable for the failings of the car, though it depends who the person actually bought the car off. The battle is either with the lease company, the dealer, or both.

I would suggest that you approach the lease company and insist that the vehicle is unfit for purpose due to this fault. They could then accept this or deny it. If they accept this, they could:
1) Reduce your payments to compensate for likely time off the road over the term of the lease.
2) Arrange to exchange for a car of similar quality under the remianing term of the lease that does not have this problem.
3) Arrange for you to have a new car that does not have this problem under a renegotiated lease.
4) Negotiate an amicable termination of the lease and allow you to return the car.

If they want to deny this, then you might find some legal support helpful - have you got legal cover with your insurance for example? Talk to Citizens Advice or Trading Standards, you might strike lucky and get someone who understands the issue and can assist you negotiating a resolution. If they want to deny it, tell them that you want it in writing as to why it is acceptable for a car to require time consuming repairs every few thousand miles, and you will expect them to defend the position in court. You should also ask for an explanation of why the repairs were necessary from the Mini dealer who carried out the repairs.

You then have to gird your loins for a small claims court action. As long as you have a sound argument, which I think you have, you could win. I think you would claim for some sensible amount that would cover the inconvenience of having the car off the road, a valuation of the time lost, and compensation for the disappontment, though not for the cost of repairs as it seems that your lease does cover this. I think that is useful to note, that they are happy to cover the repair under the terms of the maintenance of the lease and they are not suggesting it is your fault for not using the car appropriately.

If the repair bill is being paid for by the leasing company, then it might dawn on them that they've got a significant unpredicted liability over the life of the lease and it might dawn on them that they'd like you to win the argument of it being unfit for purpose.

burlington6

I bet if the salesman had told the op that petrol was the way to go the consumer would still have picked diesel due to their superior ''knowledge'' and the fact that everyone thinks that diesels are more reliable

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

burlington6 wrote: »

I bet if the salesman had told the op that petrol was the way to go the consumer would still have picked diesel due to their superior ''knowledge'' and the fact that everyone thinks that diesels are more reliable

Sweeping generalisation! I've had this conversation as looking to buy a very low mileage C Class/3 Series/A4. There are loads of diesel, few petrol, so the supposed premium for diesel seems to have vanished. I asked specifically about the DPF on the C Class (did it even have one?) as we drive little journeys most of the time and then will do a long weekend journey every month or so. The C Class is at the run out stage, not a lot of choice on nearly new petrol variants, just the C180, so I need to be convinced about the diesel - I prefer petrol, I like to be warm for a start!.