Car warranty issues

19
Found 26th Jun
Morning all

9 months ago I purchased a brand new car - Honda HRV from a glyn hopkin garage. It is a PCP deal.
About 2 months ago, the sunroof seal started to disintegrate - see the pic.
I took it to a local Honda dealer. The guy assessing this was making comments as if it was caused by birds, so I knew this would be a problem! Anyway, Honda now spoke to me and confirmed that they see this as ‘wear and tear’ and will not fix it under the warranty, however ‘as gesture of good will’ they will fix it for £200, instead of the normal charge of £800. They said their decision is final and I can take it to the motoring ombudsman if I want to.

Any thoughts on what to do and how do I prove that it is not birds making dinner from my car? I know it is not the birds, because for starters I never seen any birds on the roof of the car and also, initially the damage was internally facing, so only out when the sunroof was open.
2968407-4lioy.jpg

2968407-3PnP2.jpg
Community Updates
AskHome & GardenCar
19 Comments
That kind of "wear and tear" shouldn't be happening after 9 months, even at all. Especially when it's probably been closed for 7 of them! I'd try another Honda garage
As above this should not happen 9 months after purchase. Try another Honda Garage if not write a letter/ email to the head office.

It’s not acceptable and I would also name the garage who refused to do it under warranty.

I’d also check with local garages see if they have seen it before and if it should be covered under warranty this would back you up when you do need it.
You bought it from Glyn Hopkins, by went to a local Honda dealer? Why not go back to the seller?
As above it should not happen, even with wear and tear, after only a few months. Get lots of photos.
Personally I wouldn't bother with the ombudsman, who pays his wages? Not you, he'll have a vested interest in siding with the garages.
Small claims court. Low outlay to start the ball rolling, they'll probably settle by dropping the £200 charge before it goes to court, as their legal fees would be much higher and it is unlikely that a judge would order costs against you if you lost as the claim is not an erroneous one. Though nothing is guaranteed in court.
send your query to letters@honestjohn.co.uk for an informed opinion. If you search there, you may find others with the same problem
mrty53 m ago

You bought it from Glyn Hopkins, by went to a local Honda dealer? Why not …You bought it from Glyn Hopkins, by went to a local Honda dealer? Why not go back to the seller?As above it should not happen, even with wear and tear, after only a few months. Get lots of photos.Personally I wouldn't bother with the ombudsman, who pays his wages? Not you, he'll have a vested interest in siding with the garages. Small claims court. Low outlay to start the ball rolling, they'll probably settle by dropping the £200 charge before it goes to court, as their legal fees would be much higher and it is unlikely that a judge would order costs against you if you lost as the claim is not an erroneous one. Though nothing is guaranteed in court.


Agree that you go back to the vendor but because this is NOT warranty work. This is Not Fit for Purpose, Not of Satisfactory Quality and Not Durable as covered in consumer legislation.

Disagree with Ombudsman comment. (S)he will find in favour of the person laying out a CLEAR, ACCURATE (preferably short) case and all the more so if you have been advised on the correct legislation for your claim.

TOTALLY DISAGREE with the suggestion that you go to law without proper preparation. You are immediately liable for their legal costs. They have lawyers (probably unscrupulous, possibly on a bonus for deflecting genuine claims) on tap to fight consumers.

You are facing a bill for £00s. Do yourself a favour. Invest a small part of that in a Which subscription and then join Which Legal for approx £90 for the YEAR. Phone their lawyers and they will give you the legal position.
Edited by: "ccnp" 26th Jun
Did you pay ANY part of this on a credit card? If yes, you may have Section 75 rights
Clearly that isn't wear and tear. Contact them via social media platforms, ie facebook or twitter. They won't like it when you make negative comments and will soon look to resolving an obvious not fit for purpose complaint. Tell them you're very disappointed and have been dismissed by your local dealership and that their gesture of a discount is quite clearly not acceptable for an obvious not fit for purpose defect.
.MUFC.49 m ago

Clearly that isn't wear and tear....


Agreed, but a photograph is not going to show ombudsman / court the cause of the issue, it simply shows the current damage. Claimant needs to reasonably demonstrate defect in materials / construction.
I won't be popular stating this, but I suspect an object has been trapped between the sunroof and its aperature and the operation of the sunroof has initially / gradually chaffed / torn the material resulting in the damage shown in the photo. If that is the case it is unreasonable to expect the manufacturer / supplier to recify at no cost - could even argue that the gesture of goodwill is commendable. Unless of course the manufacturer could be said to have produced a flawed design, although that would again return the burden of proof to the customer.
AndyRoyd13 m ago

Agreed, but a photograph is not going to show ombudsman / court the cause …Agreed, but a photograph is not going to show ombudsman / court the cause of the issue, it simply shows the current damage. Claimant needs to reasonably demonstrate defect in materials / construction. I won't be popular stating this, but I suspect an object has been trapped between the sunroof and its aperature and the operation of the sunroof has initially / gradually chaffed / torn the material resulting in the damage shown in the photo. If that is the case it is unreasonable to expect the manufacturer / supplier to recify at no cost - could even argue that the gesture of goodwill is commendable. Unless of course the manufacturer could be said to have produced a flawed design, although that would again return the burden of proof to the customer.


Indeed, Good point, It does look like that may be the case. It does look like something has caught it. May be that object may still be present. Perhaps the op could see where it has been catching?.
AndyRoyd22 m ago

Agreed, but a photograph is not going to show ombudsman / court the cause …Agreed, but a photograph is not going to show ombudsman / court the cause of the issue, it simply shows the current damage. Claimant needs to reasonably demonstrate defect in materials / construction. I won't be popular stating this, but I suspect an object has been trapped between the sunroof and its aperature and the operation of the sunroof has initially / gradually chaffed / torn the material resulting in the damage shown in the photo. If that is the case it is unreasonable to expect the manufacturer / supplier to recify at no cost - could even argue that the gesture of goodwill is commendable. Unless of course the manufacturer could be said to have produced a flawed design, although that would again return the burden of proof to the customer.


A very sensible hypothesis but I would argue that a trapped item should not cause this damage. Indeed, the construction should acocunt for the possibiility of a trapped something
ccnp10 m ago

A very sensible hypothesis but I would argue that a trapped item should …A very sensible hypothesis but I would argue that a trapped item should not cause this damage. Indeed, the construction should acocunt for the possibiility of a trapped something


Observation not criticism: if I close a car door and trap my fingers in the door aperature, do you really expect me to sue the manufacturer for a bad design or expect the manufacyurer to pay to have what's left of my fingers removed from the stiker plate?
ceoemail.com/s.p…964


send an email to their CEO team you should hopefully see a better response from there.


As Andy said though have a look edge of the sunroof hole, you might find a rough piece of metal a seam or anything, even when painted that could have caused it to weaken that may help in your claim. Also have a good look at the honda forums others might have had the issue.
Edited by: "eslick" 26th Jun
Send an email to head office and cc watchdog in also.
I saw on money saving expert as per consumer rights a product should work for and be in satisfactory condition for a set period of time.
I.e you don’t expect a 50p whistle to last 3 years.
But you expect a car sun roof which you spent thousands on to last considerably longer.
Hope I made sense
Ok, So i think this may also be an issue with the Honda Jazz, "Dealer says that mice,rat or birds are eating it? Shocked"
clubjazz.org/for…9.0 . Personnaly I would fight this one, build a case of examples and dates first and check if the material is the same.
It’s on PCP go to your finance company. They are joint liable for the car.
Oneday7717 h, 32 m ago

It’s on PCP go to your finance company. They are joint liable for the car.


Jointly liable for warranty servicing maybe, but not liable for non-warranty items as is likely in this case. In general: a hirer would be nuts to inform PCP company about a non-warranty issue that may result in rectification fees at end of contract that would otherwise have realistically remained un-noticed due to the obscure location of the damage.
AndyRoyd6 h, 17 m ago

Jointly liable for warranty servicing maybe, but not liable for …Jointly liable for warranty servicing maybe, but not liable for non-warranty items as is likely in this case. In general: a hirer would be nuts to inform PCP company about a non-warranty issue that may result in rectification fees at end of contract that would otherwise have realistically remained un-noticed due to the obscure location of the damage.


The issue here is the contentious issue of whether it is warranty or not. Exactly the time when you’d normally approach them and say they are renaming on warranty obligations.
That is when the fiancées tend to step in an protect their asset.
Oneday7727th Jun

The issue here is the contentious issue of whether it is warranty or not. …The issue here is the contentious issue of whether it is warranty or not. Exactly the time when you’d normally approach them and say they are renaming on warranty obligations. That is when the fiancées tend to step in an protect their asset.


At 9 months into a hire it is highly unlikely a warranty claim will be entertained for an occurence such as this unless the hirer provides credible professional opinion, at the hirer's cost. Finance co won't chase waranty / manufacturer; finance co will simply bill the customer for rectification cost of unacceptable damage at end of hire - assuming the finance co notices (or has been made aware of) the damage.
Thanks guys for all the responses. After tweeting glyn hopkin and Honda they said they will look in to the case once again, so fingers crossed this might be solved soon! Thanks again for the help!
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants