Van Timing Chain failure less than 114k miles from new

35har1old

WhiteVanMan123 said:

I'm looking for advice and confirmation that I'm on the right track. I am a self employed sameday courier.

In November/December 2021 I bought a new Vauxhall Combo. It was pre registered, so I am technically the second owner, but I recieved it as new with delivery mileage only. (I'm worried about whether this technically counts as used and whether that is an issue with my approach).

The van has been fully serviced in line with the Vauxhall service schedule (every 25k miles). At the 100k mile service I was advised that the Timing Chain needed to be replaced at the 125k mile service. I fully intended to do this at that service.

On 31st July 2023 I broke down with a Timing Chain failure with less than 114k miles on the clock. It was recovered by RAC to my local Vauxhall garage. This damaged the engine and a replacement engine was required. Vauxhall quoted me over £10k for this repair which was roughly equivalent to the book value of the van before the failure. This makes the van uneconomic to repair and it is effectively a write off.

I do not dispute that the van was out of warranty (only 60k miles). My argument is that under the Sale of Goods Act, the van has failed to reach the test of reasonable durability (less than 114k miles and less than 20 months) and I therefore have a claim. No van should be a mechanical write off so early.

After much correspondance, today Vauxhall have confirmed that they offer no assistance with the cost of repairs.

Concurrently with dealing with Vauxhall, I have been going through the complaints procedure for the retailer who sold me the van. That has also been exhausted and they have also rejected my complaint.

As I understand it, I have no contract with Vauxhall (who I believe are reponsable), but do have a contract with the retailer (who I do not really feel are responsable) - so have no choice if I pursue further action, but to pursue the retailer.

However, I also paid the deposit on the van through my credit card (deposit c£200, van purchase price c£15,500 plus VAT - VAT which I claimed back). So I'm thinking my best approach at the moment is a Section 75 claim on my credit card.

- Is a Section 75 claim my best next move?
- Can i claim on Section 75 with the ambiguity over whether the van is new/used?
- Can I make a partial claim? Claiming the full amount would be unreasonable given that I have had 20 months / 114k miles use out of the van
- Can I/Should I claim consequential losses as well? I know it's theoretically possible under Section 75. I have not worked since 31st July so would ideally like to claim for loss of income. I am trying to buy a new (used) van this week, so hopefully that would cap my lost income at 8 weeks. (If I'd known where I would be now, 7 weeks ago, I would have got a replacement van sooner - but Vauxhall have been painfully slow responding to me and it has always seemed I am just a few days away from an answer)

What is the service schWhiteVanMan123 said:

I'm looking for advice and confirmation that I'm on the right track. I am a self employed sameday courier.

In November/December 2021 I bought a new Vauxhall Combo. It was pre registered, so I am technically the second owner, but I recieved it as new with delivery mileage only. (I'm worried about whether this technically counts as used and whether that is an issue with my approach).

The van has been fully serviced in line with the Vauxhall service schedule (every 25k miles). At the 100k mile service I was advised that the Timing Chain needed to be replaced at the 125k mile service. I fully intended to do this at that service.

On 31st July 2023 I broke down with a Timing Chain failure with less than 114k miles on the clock. It was recovered by RAC to my local Vauxhall garage. This damaged the engine and a replacement engine was required. Vauxhall quoted me over £10k for this repair which was roughly equivalent to the book value of the van before the failure. This makes the van uneconomic to repair and it is effectively a write off.

I do not dispute that the van was out of warranty (only 60k miles). My argument is that under the Sale of Goods Act, the van has failed to reach the test of reasonable durability (less than 114k miles and less than 20 months) and I therefore have a claim. No van should be a mechanical write off so early.

After much correspondance, today Vauxhall have confirmed that they offer no assistance with the cost of repairs.

Concurrently with dealing with Vauxhall, I have been going through the complaints procedure for the retailer who sold me the van. That has also been exhausted and they have also rejected my complaint.

As I understand it, I have no contract with Vauxhall (who I believe are reponsable), but do have a contract with the retailer (who I do not really feel are responsable) - so have no choice if I pursue further action, but to pursue the retailer.

However, I also paid the deposit on the van through my credit card (deposit c£200, van purchase price c£15,500 plus VAT - VAT which I claimed back). So I'm thinking my best approach at the moment is a Section 75 claim on my credit card.

- Is a Section 75 claim my best next move?
- Can i claim on Section 75 with the ambiguity over whether the van is new/used?
- Can I make a partial claim? Claiming the full amount would be unreasonable given that I have had 20 months / 114k miles use out of the van
- Can I/Should I claim consequential losses as well? I know it's theoretically possible under Section 75. I have not worked since 31st July so would ideally like to claim for loss of income. I am trying to buy a new (used) van this week, so hopefully that would cap my lost income at 8 weeks. (If I'd known where I would be now, 7 weeks ago, I would have got a replacement van sooner - but Vauxhall have been painfully slow responding to me and it has always seemed I am just a few days away from an answer)

A timing chain or belt should be changed between 80000 and 120000 so it likely will be argued that you have failed to service the vehicle as per service schedule.
As to the lost of income they will argue you should have hired a van and if claim was upheld you could have claimed the hire cost

35har1old

oldagetraveller1 said:

Is this an example of the stupidity of these extended service (engine oil and filter) changes? Maybe it's wrong to assume it's Diesel powered? That make 25k between oil/filter changes even worse.

A timing chain should and does last for the lifetime of the vehicle if oil/filter changes are carried out regularly.

Even using the best, super duper extra long life oil, 25k is ridiculous. Timing chain lubrication sprayers can easily become blocked with crud, particularly with a Diesel engine. Just look at new oil very soon after it is changed.

Timing belts don't last the life of the vehicle. they only good for so many miles or 4 to 5 years which ever comes soonest

Money_Grabber13579

35har1old said:

oldagetraveller1 said:

Is this an example of the stupidity of these extended service (engine oil and filter) changes? Maybe it's wrong to assume it's Diesel powered? That make 25k between oil/filter changes even worse.

A timing chain should and does last for the lifetime of the vehicle if oil/filter changes are carried out regularly.

Even using the best, super duper extra long life oil, 25k is ridiculous. Timing chain lubrication sprayers can easily become blocked with crud, particularly with a Diesel engine. Just look at new oil very soon after it is changed.

Timing belts don't last the life of the vehicle. they only good for so many miles or 4 to 5 years which ever comes soonest

This is a timing chain, not a timing belt. A timing chain should realistically last the lifetime of most vehicles but if not, certainly much longer than a belt.

WhiteVanMan123

It's been a while, and my fight is still ongoing, but I'm not getting any closer to where I want to be. It seems I have exhausted all avenues short of legal action. My decision now is whether to press ahead with the legal route or not.

I went through, primarily, the Section 75 route with the Credit Card company. The main problem I had was in proving that the issue was a manufacturing fault, which I am now totally convinced it was. As part of the process, I commissioned a report from an independent expert who also arranged a Vauxhall Master Technician to get access to the Timing Chain and establish what had happened.

Before I get into some quotes from the expert report, some clarifications on the position - not everything I said before was necessarily totally accurate (I'm not mechanically minded) and my understanding has increased considerably over the past year.

My van had a timing belt and a cam chain. The timing belt was due to be changed at 125k miles, however this is a red herring because the belt was in good condition. It was the cam chain that snapped. This is not a consumable that is routinely changed.

The DV5 engine from my van is widely used in a lot of different vehicles, not just Vauxhall. It is an engine with, anecdotally on the internet, a significant history of the cam chain snapping. There was a technical report in a French magazine which went into the issue in some depth. The issue appears to be a 7mm chain which is insufficient for the job. New versions of the engine now use an 8mm chain instead. There was no formal recall of the engine, but there appears, unofficially, to have been an acceptance of the problem and in certain circumstances, the manufacturer would retrospectively replace the 7mm chain free of charge with the 8mm chain.

A few quotes from the conclusion section of the independent experts report:
"The reasons for the failure of this engine are very clear. The prime and sole cause of this engine failure that resulted in the requirement of a new engine was due to the failure of the timing chain. "
"In engineering terms timing chains such as this should last the lifetime of the engine and a failure such as this is very unusual. There is clear evidence that there is an inherent problem that was present from when the vehicle was produced and in my opinion this area of the engine was not built and designed to a sufficient standard. "
"the usage of this engine at the time of failure where the mileage was 110,000 miles was not over heavy use and clearly in engineering terms the engine had probably only just run itself in. The failure of the timing chain should not have occurred and in my opinion the expected life of this chain should have been the lifetime of the engine."
"I considered very carefully other possible causes of this failure but could not arrive at any further conclusion. I can confirm that there was sufficient lubrication within the engine with there being a thick coating of oil within the camshaft bearings, therefore the lack of lubrication would have not been an issue in relationship to this failure."
"It is therefore my professional opinion that this engine's failed due to the failure of the timing chain. This in my opinion has been caused by an inherent problem present on the vehicle at time of manufacture and purchase that the manufacturers are aware of."

The report was submitted to the Credit Card Company and also the Financial Ombudsman with whom I pursued an appeal, however it seems that was not enough for them.

I feel very clearly that I am "in the right" with my claim, however also feel that the system is stacked against "the little guy" and am unsure whether pursuing this further will lead to the outcome I am hoping for. Having exhausted all other possible options and only having legal options open to me, I'm unsure how to proceed. Going to court is a pretty expensive gamble!

WhiteVanMan123

Here is the magazine article on the exact issue I faced that I referred to (in French) - https://www.largus.fr/actualite-automobile/peugeot-citroen-ds-opel-probleme-de-casse-sur-le-15-diesel-dv5-11079390.html

Okell

That report certainly points towards the chain not being up to the job and/or poorly designed.

Why did your card provider/finance provider reject the s75 claim and why did the FOS agree with them?

As you say, suing them is a gamble but you seem to have an independent engineering report that looks as if it would support a claim.

How much would you be looking to claim for?

I believe £10k is the maximum for small claims and you wouldn't have to pay the others side's costs if you lost.  Once you get above £10k you are in danger of having to pay the other side's costs if you lose.  Could get very expensive.

See what others say.

You might also want to try to sound out these two forums for advice:

Vehicle Finance and Issues - LegalBeagles Forum

Vehicle retailers and manufacturers - National Consumer Service (consumeractiongroup.co.uk)

WhiteVanMan123

Thank you. that's helpful.

My claim is for over £20k, but I have contemplated capping it to £10k to enable the Small Claims Court process.

I will check out those two other groups, and look to cross post there.

With respect to the reasoning behind the FOS rejection - there has been a bit of to and fro with comments, here are the significant parts ....

From the original judgement:
"Is there something wrong with the Van?
 
Based on the evidence I have seen there is a confirmed fault with the car. I say this because we have several different sources that confirms the timing chain has snapped and the engine needs to be replaced.
 
Satisfactory quality
 
I’ve already said why there is a fault with the car. So, I’ve gone on to consider whether the goods were of satisfactory quality when they were supplied. I’ve already set out the sort of high expectations a reasonable person would have when purchasing a new car.
 
I think it’s reasonable to expect [WhiteVanMan]’s car should have been free from the issues for a fair period following the point of supply. A reasonable person would not expect a brand-new car to have faults, and they would expect a certain level of durability.
 
This is the key question for this case due to the Van’s age. The complicating factor here is that [WhiteVanMan] has completed so many miles since purchase. Normally if a brand-new vehicle had failed so catastrophically within 20 Months, I would say that we can fairly argue the vehicle was not durable. However, [WhiteVanMan] completed 113,887 miles in under two years which is a considerable mileage in such a short period of time; and I would say that a vehicle that has completed over 100,000 miles can be said to have been fit for purpose at the point of sale and durable.
 
[WhiteVanMan] has pointed to a number of reasons as to why he feels the van can’t be said to be durable and that his independent assessment seems to back that up. However, on reflection I don’t think we can say Tesco have made a mistake in saying [WhiteVanMan] hasn’t provided evidence of a clear breach of contract.
 
I say this because
 
A) we don’t know the reason for the failure of the timing chain. While we know it failed the actual cause of failure is unknown. I know [WhiteVanMan] has provided a possible reason, which is down to the size of the chain, i.e., being 7mm rather than 8mm; but that isn’t confirmed. I would note on this I did some research online and I wasn’t able to identify this issue as a well-known issue. It certainly isn’t something that Vauxhall have done a recall on.
 
It is not uncommon that a timing chain will need replacing after 100,000 miles and so the fact that it failed after 113,887 miles is no suggestion that the van wasn’t durable enough. I do accept the experts view that a timing chain can last between 150,000 to 250,000 miles, but this would occur when optimal driving conditions, servicing, driving style and manufacturing quality all align.
 
In this case I have considered the experts view on [WhiteVanMan]’s driving style, however I don’t think this allows us to fairly say that the van wasn’t durable. I did also consider the fact that [WhiteVanMan] has adhered to Vauxhall’s service requirements but I don’t think this allows us to say the van wasn’t durable either.
 
Ultimately having considered the report and all of the evidence [WhiteVanMan] has provided, as well as the cost of the van, its age, the mileage and surrounding evidence and information about this model, I am unable to say there is a fair Section 75 claim here.
 
I am very sympathetic to [WhiteVanMan]’s situation as the van’s failure has resulted in lost work, but I don’t think there is clear evidence of a breach of contract as the van was arguably durable given the mileage it completed. Ultimately under the CRA the judgment has to be what a reasonable person would consider to be satisfactory and its reasonable to say the van has been durable when you consider its use."

In further correspondance the FSO went on to say:
"But the difficulty is that you would need to a) find the specific cause (at a cost to your self) and then need to be able to show that this failure is down to a mechanical failure that was essentially present at the point of sale. The Durability argument is going to be very hard to show given the nature of no being able l to prove in any clarity how the car was used and then provide supporting evidence that clearly demonstrates that your engine wasn't durable"

Following that I commissioned the Expert to investigate further and produce a new, more detailed inspection and report. I then supplied that new report to the FSO for their consideration. It was at this stage that the report had the quotes I referred to above.

This was their response:
"My findings
 
Following the initial assessment [WhiteVanMan] went away and has arranged for a new independent assessment of the van by the same inspector. The inspector stripped the engine and found ‘Examination of the broken timing chain revealed that it had failed due to a failed link that had opened up.’ The inspector went on to explain that ‘where there is a known fault and inherent defect with this engine which in my opinion was present from when the vehicle was produced.’
 
The inspector went on to conclude ‘This failure of the chain that caused the camshaft to jam up, shear its drive gear and thereafter mis-time the engine in my opinion is an occurrence that should not have occurred especially on an engine that had only covered 110,000 miles.’
In engineering terms timing chains such as this should last the lifetime of the engine and a failure such as this is very unusual. There is clear evidence that there is an inherent problem that was present from when the vehicle was produced and in my opinion this area of the engine was not built and designed to a sufficient standard. This is somewhat proved by the information given in the following appendix 1.
 
I have laid out in my previous report on this matter dated the 22nd of December 2023 that the usage of this engine at the time of failure where the mileage was 110,000 miles was not over heavy use and clearly in engineering terms the engine had probably only just run itself in. The failure of the timing chain should not have occurred and in my opinion the expected life of this chain should have been the lifetime of the engine.’
 
The inspector finished by saying ‘It is therefore my professional opinion that this engine's failed due to the failure of the timing chain. This in my opinion has been caused by an inherent problem present on the vehicle at time of manufacture and purchase that the manufacturers are aware of.’
 
I provided this to Tesco who concluded they found ‘the report provided contradicts the manufacture guarantees, doesn't state what the actual fault is or support the claims made in the previous report. The vehicle has still been used over 114,000 miles and supports wear and tear.’
 
Given the report and Tesco’s position I have gone back and reviewed everything we know about the van and what happened to the engine.
 
[WhiteVanMan] bought a brand-new van in December 2021. When the engine failed in July 2023 it had completed around 110,000 miles, which is a considerable mileage for its age. It means the van was completing around 5,500 miles a month. Given these approximate figures I am safe and content in stating that the van was clearly durable. This means that the only option is to show that the failure was purely down to a manufacturing fault which was present at the point of sale.
 
It is clear that the inspector has this perspective and feels that the issue that affected [WhiteVanMan]’s van was a known issue for this engine and that the engine should have lasted longer than it did. Having considered this at length I am not of the same view.
 
Ultimately for us to be able to say that there has been a clear breach of contract, we have to be able to show that the engine failure was down to an inherent manufacturing fault. The inspector has clearly shown that the timing chain failed but what he hasn’t shown is that the timing chain didn’t fail due to wear and tear. While timing chains can last past the 100,000-mile mark but when they do it is down to regular servicing and ideal conditions and use. The fact is that it is hard to argue that the van has been used in the ideal conditions and use given that it has completed so many miles in such a short period of time.
 
I know the inspector has stated that ‘there appears to be a well-established situation where there is a known fault and inherent defect with this engine which in my opinion was present from when the vehicle was produce.’ However, having looked at the evidence the inspector had provided it doesn’t cover this car or this manufacturer.
 
Even if we assume the engine in this van is the one indicated in the information the inspector provided, it doesn’t have any guidance on how long a timing chain would last for the affected engines. The report also doesn’t clearly show that this van’s engine hadn’t been modified to resolve this possible issue. As the evidence the inspector has cited states, ‘according to the two technical notes in question, the PSA group has made modifications to this engine, the installation of an 8mm chain instead of a 7 and that of so called new generation exhaust valves.’
 
The other issue we have is that while the inspector was clear on the break of the chain, the evidence he has cited isn’t clear at all in how the breakages in the effected engines occurred.
 
Therefore, on balance having looked at the new report I am unable to say that this shows that there is evidence of a breach of contract on the basis that there is no clear evidence that the issue with the timing chain was down to poor manufacturing. Given the mileage it would have to be clear and obvious and that just isn’t the case here.
 
My Conclusions
 
Overall, I am not changing the outcome of this case for the reasons I have explained above. I am not persuaded that the evidence clearly shows that a breach of contract has occurred.
 
I appreciate [WhiteVanMan] will be disappointed by this outcome and I am very sympathetic to his situation as he has done everything, he could, to try to identify that a breach had occurred.
However, I hope this assessment is clear in explaining why I have reached this conclusion."

It was my view that the FSO here was conflating the Timing Belt/Cam Belt (which needs to be regularly replaced) with the Timing Chain/Cam Chain (which is not regularly replaced), as I had done, and as Tesco had done before our understanding had developed. I put this to the FSO

His response was:
"The first thing to say is that there is no specific industry standard that says a timing belt of chain has to or will last a certain mileage but the general expectation is that either one lasts about 100,000 miles and of course that means that some will last longer and some won't.
 
If you look online you tend to get answers to how long either one lasts as I have demonstrated below.
 
A timing belt although they do the same job. re the life span of a timing belt - 'Cambelts or timing belts usually need to be replaced, usually between 40,000 and 100,000 miles. Alternatively, for lower mileage cars, the belt is advised to be replaced around four or five years. However, it all depends on the car and manufacturer.'
 
'Unless there is a specific fault, the timing chain should be replaced between 80,000 and 120,000 miles. Chain problems are frequent in automobiles with increasing mileage. If you're driving an older car or one with a lot of miles on it, keep an eye out for signs that the timing chain is failing.'
Both of these quotes fit with our understanding and experience of how these things tend to go.
What I would also note however is that most engines will only have either a Timing chain of a timing belt, not both. they may on occasion have two of one but never a mixture unless it is a hand built customer car. A main manufacture doesn't make engines like that. The belt you maybe referring to could be an auxiliary belt.
Ultimately however re the distance travel to failure, it is generally accepted that any vehicle that has completed the kind of distance your van has is going to be hard to show that the issue lies at the door of the manufacturer. If the van was say 8 years old there wold be no chance that we could ever say that the issue was down to the manufacturer. the reason that option remained for you was due to the age but the hurdle of showing the car was unsatisfactory at the point of sale gets higher the more mileage it does.  This is why I came down on the side I did. The report isn't clear in stating that the issue wasn't down to wear and tear.
In know you said that 'The timing chain is not a user maintained part of the vehicle that is commonly replaced. To all intents and purposes, it is not a part that should be considered subject to wear and tear considerations, much less after only 114k miles' and you are correct it is not a directly maintained by a driver, but the other maintenance of the car supports the way it runs. I also can't argue that it is not a component subject to wear and tear as the chain is used every time you turn the engine on and drive the van. The chain is subject to wear from the moment you pick up the van.
In terms of what you have said about how you have used the van, I completely accept that argument, the difficulty is that the timing chain is a part subject to wear and tear. I would have been very content to have upheld this case as the vans failure caused no end of stress inconvenience and cost to you, but I am considering the case against the finance provider and as such I have to be able to fairly say as an impartial assessment that there is clear evidence to show the finance provider is liable and the evidence doesn't do that from my view.
So I accept and appreciate that this is not the outcome you want, but I can assure you that if there was any reasonable avenue to uphold the case I would have done."

WhiteVanMan123

I absolutely dispute his understanding here. There is no suggestion at all that the Cam Chain in my van should be changed every 80-120k miles - indeed from what I have come to understand, that sounds absolutely ridiculous. I put this to him (not quite in those terms) and had the following response (this is the final correspondance I have had with them):

"You stated that 'I refer you to my expert report, which I suggest should be more authoritative than general internet
searches. Specifically, section 6.1 of the 24th May 2024 report which states that “chains such as this
should last the lifetime of the engine and a failure such as this is very unusual”. Whilst failures such as
this are unusual, they are not that unusual, it would appear on this engine and I refer you to section 5.0
of the same report which states “there appears to be a well-established situation where there is a
known fault and inherent defect with this engine which in my opinion was present from when the
vehicle was produced”. I maintain my previous statement that the failed chain on my vehicle was not a
user serviceable part and should have lasted the lifetime of the vehicle if it had been produced to
sufficient quality. In the services I had done with Vauxhall, no mention was ever made of changing the
chain.'
 
I agree that a simple internet search is not something that overrules an experts report. However the internet search was provided in an attempt to example the rational behind the overall conclusion.
 
As a service (and myself) we have built up a strong general knowledge about cars and how they work, but also how they can fail and what is likely to have caused the failure, this is mostly through research and learnt information from expert reports etc over time. However we also rely on a team of mechanically knowledgeable people here who are able to provide offer advise and provide expertise when required.
 
To be brutally honest regarding the experts comments 'Chains such as this should last the lifetime of the engine and a failure such as this is very unusual.'
 
It's possible for timing chains to last +100k miles but this is heavily dependant on regular servicing and ideal conditions/use. It's not uncommon for timing chains to display signs of stretching (rattling) around 100k miles and while many manufactures don't specify an interval to change timing chains, continuing to use an engine with a timing rattle can result in the chain jumping off the timing gears or stretching to a point of failure.
 
Our experience is that the view that the chain should last the life time of the vehicle is optimistic.
 
In terms of Vauxhall not recommending that the chain be replaced as part of the service, this is because this is not something manufacturers tend to recommend, unless there is a sign that the chain is failing.
 
While I also accept that the inspector has pointed to the issue being a known issue I was unable to confirm this in any definitive way that could have shown that a) your engine was effected and b) the issue wasn't wear and tear."

Apologies for the wall of text. I've tried to make it a bit clearer with the italics (quotes from the FSO) and bold (my comments in here).

PHK

I think part of the problem, is that your experts report carefully doesn't rule out excess wear and tear due to the mileage but says both that the engine was faulty from manufacture and that this type of failure is not that unusual. 

I can see why the FOS have reached their decision. 

As to next steps, I think you need advice from a solicitor. For the value of thr claim and a FOS decision then the next steps are unclear. Possibly even a tribunal review. 

WhiteVanMan123

Thank you for taking the time to read what I have posted and respond. I appreciate there is a huge wall of text there and am thankful to anyone who has the time and energy to read it and respond.

Just one point of clarity - the expert says that "failure such as this is very unusual". As well as stating that "the failure of the chain .... should not have occured especially on an engine that had only covered 110,000 miles", "the expected life of this chain should have been the lifetime of the engine".

He also went on to say "I considered very carefully other possible causes of this failure but could not arrive at any further conclusion. I can confirm that there was sufficient lubrication within the engine with there being a thick coating of oil within the camshaft bearings, therefore the lack of lubrication would have not been an issue in relationship to this failure."

If you have any interest in seeing the full expert report, I am happy to provide a copy of it to you privately (rather than the snippets I'm picking and choosing to post).

Can I ask please, what is a "tribunal review"?

With respect to speaking to a solicitor, that's the moment at which I feel it starts to become really expensive (I have had an initial consultation with a local solicitor, free of charge, before I received the report - they said if I forwarded the report over to them when I received it, then they would have a quick look and be able to tell me whether it was worth proceeding further - I did, and when they received it, they said it was too detailed for them to consider without being commissioned with the case)