Question regarding car fault and claiming recompense

CALGACUS · 9 November 2017 at 9:56AM

Hi All,

It's been a while since I last posted on these boards but I was hoping that someone out there might be able to offer me some advise (or, better yet, some personal experience).

I bought a second-hand Mazda 6 about three years ago and have (on the whole) loved the car.

Last December I got into the driver's seat of the car, felt a 'snap' from the seat base, and the seat began 'rocking' to and fro. I drove the car home (gingerly) and took it to the garage where I had originally bought it - they inspected it and announced that a weld had broken in the seat base and the whole base would need to be replaced. I 'sucked-it-up', paid for the work to be done and for the replacement parts necessary and got the car back.

On the 7th Auguest this year I received a "Safety Recall Notification" from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency informing me that my car would need to be taken to dealer in order to have a potentialy dangerous fault corrected. The description of the fault reads:

"The first issue relates to the driver's seat where the adjuster link may be cracked or the securing nuts may become detached. If the vehicle is driven in this condition the seat may exhibit an unusual noise or rattle. In the worst case the adjuster link may break causing the seat to recline un-expectedly, making the vehicle difficult to control."

This is exactly what had earlier occurred with my car - and which I had privately paid to have corrected.

My question - probably not unexpectedly at this point - is: can I claim back from Mazda for the cost of the repairs that I had done (at my own expense) in December, given that Mazda has now publicly acknowledged that there was a fault with this vehicle (and others like it)?

I'd be especially interested in any accounts of others who have found themselves in a similar position (with whatever model of car).

Also, suggestions as to how to approach Mazda UK: should I be matter-of-fact and simply request compensation for the cost of the December repairs? Or should I be more forceful?

It's difficult to calculate the exact cost of the repairs as I had two new tyres fitted and balanced at the same time, but the costs are approximately £388 (inc vat).

I still have the invoice and receipt for payment.

Sorry about the length of this and, if you've got this far, thanks for reading!

Don.

AdrianC · 9 November 2017 at 10:16AM

CALGACUS wrote: »

Also, suggestions as to how to approach Mazda UK: should I be matter-of-fact and simply request compensation for the cost of the December repairs? Or should I be more forceful?

What do you mean by "more forceful"? Apart from the cost of the repairs being reimbursed, what do you expect to get out of this?

I presume this is the recall in question: https://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/searches/expand.asp?uniqueID=74F42A36EC6184338025811B002689BF&freeText=Blank&tx=

So it's a 2009-10 built car. 7-8 years old.
You may well get a goodwill contribution, but I think you might be lucky.
I presume that it's not been near a Mazda dealer in years, so Mazda may well say "Well, if it'd been dealer serviced, we'd have noticed before it was an issue and repaired it for free".

The work was not done at a Mazda dealer - if it had been taken to one, they may well have done the work for zero labour at the time, before the recall became official in May - would it really be appropriate for them to cover the full labour cost of a non-dealer garage?

The recall repair does not include replacing the entire seat base - it simply repairs and reinforces one bar, so you may well find they offer to reimburse the parts cost of the recall repair kit - which will be minimal.

It's difficult to calculate the exact cost of the repairs as I had two new tyres fitted and balanced at the same time, but the costs are approximately £388 (inc vat).

I presume the invoice breaks the parts and labour down, and probably includes a "fit and balance" price for the tyres. The parts cost for the seat base should be obvious, and the labour is unlikely to be more than an hour.

CALGACUS · 9 November 2017 at 11:39AM

Hi AdrainC,

Thanks for replying.

Regarding "more forceful": I mentioned this issue to a Mazda salesman at the garage I took the car to for the recall work and he said (regarding Mazda UK): "a strongly worded email often works wonders". It wouldn't be my first inclination, but I wondered if my usual conciliatory tone might be ineffective in this situation.

I couldn't open the link that you posted (500 - Internal server error), but I'm sure that it's the same issue since you have the years correct.
I've been taking the car for servicing and MOTs to the same Arnold Clark garage that I bought it from and they also did the December seat repair. If it had been serviced by a Mazda dealer I doubt that they would have noticed the problem since it was underneath the seat and I shouldn't think that that would be likely to form part of a standard service.

Re-reading the invoice I see that I misread it. Under labour it reads:

"Replaced O/S/F Seat base, now secure"

I read it as "Replaced O/S/F Seat base. Now secure" rather than what was obviously meant: "Replaced O/S/F. Seat base now secure" (I think).

Labour costs (in total) are £93.00 - what part of that is the tyres and what the seat; I don't know (ah! - just noticed - it breaks it down further. The £93.00 is just for the seat!). The list of parts (excluding the tyres) is quite long - I'm not sure whether they all refer to the seat or not. The "Adjuster unit" on it's own is £209.99, the others add up to about another £25 (nuts, bolts & washers mostly).

So the price I quoted originally is about right.

If the recall became, as you say, official in May - then the original failure predates that, which gives me the (quite possibly incorrect) feeling that the recall acts almost as an acknowledgement on the part of Mazda that one feature of their vehicle is not "fit for purpose". Whilst faults on cars of the age of mine are to be expected (and I didn't baulk at the original repair - simply putting it down to "wear and tear"), I feel that now I have a case to say "the cost of replacing and fitting this part is due to a failure at the design/development/build stage of the vehicles life - and shouldn't be bourne by the owner".

Sorry - once again I've written a screed.

Thanks for the reply:D

Don.

AdrianC · 9 November 2017 at 12:39PM

CALGACUS wrote: »

I couldn't open the link that you posted (500 - Internal server error), but I'm sure that it's the same issue since you have the years correct.

Oooh, they're a pain! Go to http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/ and see if you can find R/2017/150 - for me, it's the top result for https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dft.gov.uk+R%2F2017%2F150

recall wrote:

Concern : MOUNTING POINTS FOR SEAT RUNNER MAY FAIL
Description : One or more of the mounting points between the runner and the driver’s seat may fail.
Remedial Action : On affected vehicles, inspect the driver’s seat frame to determine if seat lifter links are damaged. If no damage is evident, fit reinforcement brackets and “push nuts”. If damage is present to the seat lifter link, replace seat frame. If damage is restricted to stabilizer bar then the bar will be repaired plus brackets and” push nuts” fitted.

I've been taking the car for servicing and MOTs to the same Arnold Clark garage that I bought it from and they also did the December seat repair.

Ah, Arnold Shark...

If it had been serviced by a Mazda dealer I doubt that they would have noticed the problem since it was underneath the seat and I shouldn't think that that would be likely to form part of a standard service.

It's entirely possible that there was a technical bulletin in place for a while beforehand, requiring them to check.

Re-reading the invoice I see that I misread it. Under labour it reads:

"Replaced O/S/F Seat base, now secure"

I read it as "Replaced O/S/F Seat base. Now secure" rather than what was obviously meant: "Replaced O/S/F. Seat base now secure" (I think).

No, I think you were right first time. Your second reading - OSF what? OSF = Offside Front, so OSF seat = driver's seat.

Labour costs (in total) are £93.00 - what part of that is the tyres and what the seat; I don't know (ah! - just noticed - it breaks it down further. The £93.00 is just for the seat!). The list of parts (excluding the tyres) is quite long - I'm not sure whether they all refer to the seat or not. The "Adjuster unit" on it's own is £209.99, the others add up to about another £25 (nuts, bolts & washers mostly).

So the price I quoted originally is about right.

Whereas the recall repair is a small bracket to reinforce.

If the recall became, as you say, official in May - then the original failure predates that, which gives me the (quite possibly incorrect) feeling that the recall acts almost as an acknowledgement on the part of Mazda that one feature of their vehicle is not "fit for purpose".

Now that is a BIG leap of logic... Also, you have no legal recourse against Mazda - for two reasons. First, you have no contractual relationship with them, since you didn't buy the car from them. Second, the car is over 6yo. You MIGHT have a "fit for purpose" claim against Arnold, but good luck with that...

Whilst faults on cars of the age of mine are to be expected (and I didn't baulk at the original repair - simply putting it down to "wear and tear"), I feel that now I have a case to say "the cost of replacing and fitting this part is due to a failure at the design/development/build stage of the vehicles life - and shouldn't be bourne by the owner".

The recall is not on cost grounds. It's on safety grounds - if the seat fractures whilst driving, you may lose control. Your car is not subject to the recall, because your car has already been repaired, so the safety risk no longer exists.

CALGACUS · 9 November 2017 at 1:37PM

If I may deal with your last point first:

Your car is not subject to the recall, because your car has already been repaired, so the safety risk no longer exists.

Obviously neither Mazda or the DVSA knew about the repair so as far as they were concerned my car was subject to the recall - hence why I received the letter from the latter. I don't know however whether or not the December repair fixed the underlying fault to the standards that the Safety Recall Notification required. Arnold Clark would have been unaware of the safety issue in December last year and so would have done (I assume) a like-for-like repair - so my car still would have required the upgraded parts, or whatever, were fitted this week by my local Mazda (also, ironically, an Arnold Clark site) garage.

I realise that the recall was on safety grounds - I worded that paragraph badly:o. What I should have written is:

"the cost to me of replacing and fitting this part is due to a failure at the design/development/build stage of the vehicles life - and shouldn't be bourne by the owner"

I still feel that this stands as the Safety Recall acts as vindication of the fault being Mazda's - not mine (or Arnold Shark's:D).

Also, you have no legal recourse against Mazda - for two reasons. First, you have no contractual relationship with them, since you didn't buy the car from them. Second, the car is over 6yo. You MIGHT have a "fit for purpose" claim against Arnold, but good luck with that...

If Mazda have no obligation towards me then why are they carrying out 'fixes' gratis on vehicles that are over six years old (and thus long past any warranty period)? Surely the fact that they are carrying out these corrections shows that they continue to have an obligation for their vehicles and towards the owners of those vehicles. As such: since I was forced to pay for an interim solution in order for my vehicle to remain safe and roadworthy (prior to them issuing the recall) my feeling remains that compensation for the repair costs that I incurred would be fair.

I would like to stress that I really appreciate your replies - I can see how it probably appears that I'm reading your advice and refusing to take it onboard - but I really am, and you've given me a lot of food for thought. I don't want to appear to be one of these posters who obstensively asks for advice and then completely ignores what others take the time to post in reply.

So thanks again.

AdrianC · 9 November 2017 at 1:48PM

CALGACUS wrote: »

Obviously neither Mazda or the DVSA knew about the repair so as far as they were concerned my car was subject to the recall - hence why I received the letter from the latter.

OK, good point. Yes, your car is presumed to be subject to the recall - but the affected part is not faulty.

I don't know however whether or not the December repair fixed the underlying fault to the standards that the Safety Recall Notification required. Arnold Clark would have been unaware of the safety issue in December last year and so would have done (I assume) a like-for-like repair - so my car still would have required the upgraded parts, or whatever, were fitted this week by my local Mazda (also, ironically, an Arnold Clark site) garage.

Your shape of Mazda 6 was in production from 2007 to 2012, yet the only cars affected are those built 2009-10. This suggests a spec or supplier change, and replacement parts now would almost certainly be to the updated spec or from the new supplier - the reinforcement kit would still fit, although would be redundant.

If Mazda have no obligation towards me then why are they carrying out 'fixes' gratis on vehicles that are over six years old (and thus long past any warranty period)? Surely the fact that they are carrying out these corrections shows that they continue to have an obligation for their vehicles and towards the owners of those vehicles.

And they've fitted that reinforcement kit to your replacement seatbase now, whether it needed it or not, so your seat should not fail again in the future.

As such: since I was forced to pay for an interim solution in order for my vehicle to remain safe and roadworthy (prior to them issuing the recall) my feeling remains that compensation for the repair costs that I incurred would be fair.

Except that the fix that was implemented goes far above and beyond the recall fix - even where the part is found to be fractured, it's repaired and reinforced, rather than the entire base replaced.

Like I said - you may get a goodwill contribution, but I think pushing for a full refund is optimistic.