Warranty Issue - Vauxhall Mokka

NSG666

[Deleted User] said:

Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost. The clutch should last longer than that, especially if it was serviced according to the manufacturer schedule by the dealer.

I understand your sentiment but your first sentence is an opinion not a fact.

NSG666

Poolie50 said:

Thank you all for your reply's will keep you updated. 

Good luck. The manufacturer may offer a goodwill gesture. If that doesn't happen try and sweet talk the dealer (you might need to go to the Dealer Principal) into a goodwill gesture such as your next MOT (test only) and service foc

flashg67

Have you checked your reg number for a recall - a few models  had  issues with clutch hydraulics - it took Vauxhall ages to issue a recall,  but prior to that, unless the dealer could replicate the fault, they were often just 'fobbed' off until it happened again. Symptoms were often he clutch pedal staying down, until manually pulled back up with your foot etc. 
https://www.gov.uk/check-vehicle-recall

[Deleted User]

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost. The clutch should last longer than that, especially if it was serviced according to the manufacturer schedule by the dealer.

I understand your sentiment but your first sentence is an opinion not a fact.

That's what the word "should" means.

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

AdrianC

rigolith said:

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Is five years and 40k miles a "reasonable" life for a clutch slave if the fluid's never been changed? Yes, very likely it is.

The car is out of warranty by two years. The chances of goodwill from the manufacturer are near-zero.
It may be covered by the used-car warranty, or it may not be.
The fault was clearly not present at the time of sale, because the car has been in use for four months.

NSG666

[Deleted User] said:

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost. The clutch should last longer than that, especially if it was serviced according to the manufacturer schedule by the dealer.

I understand your sentiment but your first sentence is an opinion not a fact.

That's what the word "should" means.

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Sorry rigolith but the definition of should is

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

   "he should have been careful"
2. used to indicate what is probable.
   "£348 m should be enough to buy him out"
   
   

So "Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost." Is an incorrect fact as they have no obligation. Ought to would have been more appropriate as it's a similar definition without the obligation.

I'm not looking to give anyone English lessons as neither my English nor my grammar are brilliant but, in this case, it's significant in managing people's expectations.

On the bright side at least you didn't say should of!

[Deleted User]

AdrianC said:

rigolith said:

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Is five years and 40k miles a "reasonable" life for a clutch slave if the fluid's never been changed? Yes, very likely it is.

The car is out of warranty by two years. The chances of goodwill from the manufacturer are near-zero.
It may be covered by the used-car warranty, or it may not be.
The fault was clearly not present at the time of sale, because the car has been in use for four months.

The question is IF the fluid was changed, and if not why it wasn't changed if the car was serviced according the manufacturer's schedule.

One might also question why it needs doing after 5 years, suggests a manufacturing defect because while I'm no expert on clutches I've never heard of this fluid needing replacing after a few years.

[Deleted User]

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost. The clutch should last longer than that, especially if it was serviced according to the manufacturer schedule by the dealer.

I understand your sentiment but your first sentence is an opinion not a fact.

That's what the word "should" means.

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Sorry rigolith but the definition of should is

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

   "he should have been careful"
2. used to indicate what is probable.
   "£348 m should be enough to buy him out"
   
   

So "Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost." Is an incorrect fact as they have no obligation. Ought to would have been more appropriate as it's a similar definition without the obligation.

I'm not looking to give anyone English lessons as neither my English nor my grammar are brilliant but, in this case, it's significant in managing people's expectations.

On the bright side at least you didn't say should of!

You should of quit while you were behind, pedantry isn't a good look.

ontheroad1970

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

NSG666 said:

[Deleted User] said:

Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost. The clutch should last longer than that, especially if it was serviced according to the manufacturer schedule by the dealer.

I understand your sentiment but your first sentence is an opinion not a fact.

That's what the word "should" means.

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Sorry rigolith but the definition of should is

1. used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

   "he should have been careful"
2. used to indicate what is probable.
   "£348 m should be enough to buy him out"
   
   

So "Even out of warranty they should contribute to the cost." Is an incorrect fact as they have no obligation. Ought to would have been more appropriate as it's a similar definition without the obligation.

I'm not looking to give anyone English lessons as neither my English nor my grammar are brilliant but, in this case, it's significant in managing people's expectations.

On the bright side at least you didn't say should of!

I read it the way you intended, but perhaps "ought to have", though sounding old fashioned would have left absolutely no doubt to anyone feeling in the mood for a debate.

AdrianC

rigolith said:

AdrianC said:

rigolith said:

Having said that under the Consumer Rights Act things do have to last a reasonable length of time, so there is a good argument to be made.

Is five years and 40k miles a "reasonable" life for a clutch slave if the fluid's never been changed? Yes, very likely it is.

The car is out of warranty by two years. The chances of goodwill from the manufacturer are near-zero.
It may be covered by the used-car warranty, or it may not be.
The fault was clearly not present at the time of sale, because the car has been in use for four months.

The question is IF the fluid was changed, and if not why it wasn't changed if the car was serviced according the manufacturer's schedule.

Simple, because there's two aspects to the schedule - mileage and time.

Most servicing is mileage. Brake fluid is time. The service adviser SHOULD have said "this fluid needs changing, Sir", but did Sir say "Nah, it's fine..."?