Citroen - air suspension failure - why 80% off not free?

aecb

Hi - I have a Citroen C4 Picasso that has been affected by a fault with the air suspension - it is clearly a known fault having been identified by Watchdog a few years ago (although mine would've been one of the last of that generation to be made so it has taken longer to fail on mine than most!)

https://www.uk-car-discount.co.uk/news/watchdog-citroen-C4-picasso-suspension

The car was picked up to be repaired today and the standard 80% discount mentioned in the link above agreed to - the Citroen garage have apparently had a lot of these! I didn't think about it any further at the time as I was relieved to not be facing a repair bill of over £1,000 but, given this is a known fault and only not a full recall as Citroen don't know which cars have the faulty parts (apparently it was only a batch of parts and doesn't affect all C4's of a certain age), why is the discount only 80% and not the full amount?

I assume Watchdog would've pushed it more if it should've been free repairs but, even with an 80% discount, the repair cost could be up to £300 and I would've expected faulty parts should be repaired for free? TIA.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

I think that their argument is that it is wear and tear, but as some have not lasted what would be reasonable, they are replacing with a significant contribution as there is "betterment".

Reminds me of the 30 year bodywork warranty on my 1999 Merc. It had rust perforation, but when you tried to get a repair, they wanted betterment and as the cost of a discounted Merc repair was so high, it was cheaper to go to a third party for new wings and a waist high respray. (I considered arguing that after 10 years, a repair should have been free as they implied the bodywork should have lasted 30 years and a repair after 10 years with the same parts would probably only last another 10).

Somewhere else on MSE you might find my thread about an insurance claim where a decorator deposited a tin of paint over a carpet. Although the bedroom carpet was about 10 years old, it was not worn and the insurers tried to argue betterment. I successfully argued my case on the basis of why should my bank balance be reduced because of someone else's carelessness - we were going to be in the same position after the replacement as before, an essentially unworn carpet.

I understand your argument entirely - why should your bank balance be reduced for replacing a part that should have been engineered to a satisfactory quality? The car is not improved over its original condition. However, I guess it could be argued that it is more like a shock absorber rather than a coil spring. I guess it in part depends what the design life was meant to be.

In principle you can still fall back on the Sale of Goods Act, but you would need to consider whether ultimately would a court decide it was reasonable for the part to be considered unfit for purpose, especially if you are suggesting that it has taken a long time or high mileage to fail.

facade

Cynically, I would think the repair retails at 10 times what it actually costs them, so with an 80% discount they are still making a 100% profit, and letting you feel that you have a good deal.

Mercdriver

facade wrote: »

Cynically, I would think the repair retails at 10 times what it actually costs them, so with an 80% discount they are still making a 100% profit, and letting you feel that you have a good deal.

How factual is that cynicism though? The price of replacing the part = wholesale part price + labour cost, so the price set against just the wholesale parts cost would seem high.

motorguy

Mercdriver wrote: »

How factual is that cynicism though? The price of replacing the part = wholesale part price + labour cost, so the price set against just the wholesale parts cost would seem high.

I wouldnt go so far as to say Citroen are likely to be making 100% profit but i'd say its not costing them anything because they're over inflating the headline cost in the first place.

It also means they can look like heroes to any regulatory body / customers generally by contributing what seems to be a large amount towards a repair. If anyone took them to court, then they're already seen to be making a considerable effort financially (on paper anyway).

Its like Renault with the electric window debacle. They were doing / are doing a similar offer of a large percentage off the repair cost, but you can get the part you need off of ebay for £30 and its a 30 min job to fit. Certainly not the hundreds of pounds Renault suggest it would cost.