Volvo C30 2.0D "Shark Performance" nightmare!

[shark90]

Originally Posted by yalrafai

Hi Nick, I contacted them after a couple of weeks. I wanted to drive the car for more miles to ensure that the shuddering/oscillating revs wasn't just a "one-off" whilst the car was adapting to the new map.

So it's something that changed/deteriorated over time?

[cjj]

Originally Posted by Clan

Law is usually common sense ...
map fitted ,
customer paid ,
allegedly immediate major problems with car , seller should be given the chance to sort it out ..
map taken off , At that exact point a refund should have been given ... as customer no longer has an " Improvement" but the seller certainly has ..ie still has the money . that isn't common sense ...

That's just the general impression I get from reading all this .
I hope all is sorted very soon on both sides .

Problem is, the timeline between map added and removed was over 2 months. The first reported instance of issue was 6-7 weeks after the initial map.

It's not like the customer has paid for something they haven't received - they chose to have the service reversed.

Pretty much like paying a builder to build a wall, then a few months later getting him back to knock it down.

The biggest issue I'd have, if the OP is being genuine, is that he's in danger of possibly having his pants pulled down by a dealer who seem to have have charged £300 for some diagnostic work completed that, essentially, is just a red herring that'll mask the issue for a couple of weeks (if that).

Although, I suspect the OP is aware of this, hence their admission of wanting to "post daily reports on Volvo's progress in this investigation", which to me suggests that they aren't expecting the problem to be resolved. I'm trying to look at this impartially, but it does come across as post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[yalrafai]

Also nick, to be fair the shuddering occured once or twice before I contacted shark and the oscillating was extremely mild I barely noticed it at first

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Rooster

When was the last time the fuel filter was changed??

How many miles has the car done??

When was the last time the gearbox oil was changed (service item)??

What fuel has it got in it, ie where do you fill up??

What exactly is it doing at what, gear, revs, speed??

??????????????????????????????????????????????

[yalrafai]

Originally Posted by Rooster

??????????????????????????????????????????????

It was serviced in October.
~53,000 miles
Shell normal diesel

3rd,4th,5th gear revs jump ~100rpm at a time whilst accelerating. Revs oscillating whilst cruising. Smokey exhaust not a problem since remap was taken off. Shuddering has stopped since remap removed.

[Rooster]

Half an answer were getting there,

Was gearbox oil changed at 50k service??

Fuel filter every 2years 37500miles,

With no log data the fuel pressure fault codes could have been in ages,

If a regen has helped the car do we know what the DPF pressure sensors reading before and after regen and how much soot was in filter before and after??

Could the car be constantly be trying to regen due to a number of factors maybe a faulty sensor or a sticky injector??

Is all the lower arm bushes and bottom engine mount in good condition??

[JulianT]

Without comment on this particular issue as requested.

The Consumer Rights Act came into force from 01 October 2015 and all purchases from that date onwards are governed by this legislation.

'Services' of this type are explicitly included.

Even if we were looking at the previous acts, (Sale Of Goods Act, Supply Of Goods and Services Act or the Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulations) garage services have always been included.

Every trader should know how these work. Trying to muddy the waters is unhelpful and I believe reflects badly on those doing it.

There is a great guide here: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-righ...mer-rights-act

[iantowil]

Originally Posted by Clan

Law is usually common sense ...
map fitted ,
customer paid ,
allegedly immediate major problems with car , seller should be given the chance to sort it out ..
map taken off , At that exact point a refund should have been given ... as customer no longer has an " Improvement" but the seller certainly has ..ie still has the money . that isn't common sense ...

That's just the general impression I get from reading all this .
I hope all is sorted very soon on both sides .

Good logic! I like Shark's efforts to look at the data, but you should have given a refund on removal of the map. Don't really understand why you wouldn't.

At the moment your both playing word tennis on a forum. If you can talk directly without arguing, it has to be better than this.
Good luck, I hope you can sort it out.

[benr7310]

It's not the seller's fault if there was an underlying condition with the car - proved by the car being returned to normal and still having the issue.

The seller should have been notified as soon as possible to get it diagnosed and reviewed. They weren't.

The builder & wall analogy was perfect.
Seller doesn't have a legal liability to pay the money back and of they chose to it would be a gesture of good will - something I doubt they would want to do considering this entire post on here slating their work.

Good luck taking it to court because you will lose and it will cost you more than its worth.

[s40futureproof]

Hi,

Two things to point out, if the remap did not include a warranty then statutory time limits apply as per legislation i.e. 14 days exchange/refund for goods, extended to 28 days on most services. I am not sure how it applies to automotive but I am pretty sure that is why most automotive services covered by warranties. In the absence of warranty the court will take a view on what would be 'reasonable' under your circumstances. Reasonable is the key legal test here and judges will rely on professional witnesses who are legally qualified in this field in which a dispute takes place i.e. Volvo representative, automotive industry ombudsman, car mechanics association - provided that either plaintiff or defence can get them to show up to court.

No2 - The foundation of legal representation in England is that the plaintiff must first give the defence (Shark) the opportunity to rectify the problem. Failing that, you then must demonstrate that you have sought all other possible avenues to come to an agreement. Only if all that failed, you can bring this matter to the court's attention. Of course, nothing stops you filing for court sooner but then the judge can easily rule against you on the basis that you have not given the seller the reasonable opportunity to resolve it.

So, Filing a written complaint with Shark and have proof they have received/responded to it is the first order of business. Without it, you will end up paying £50 case filing fee and £200-£500 court allocation fee (depending how much your claim is for) and this can be thrown out of court without the case been heard and all the above fees would have been for nothing.

Now, if you get Volvo dealer to write that the repair they conducted is likely to have been due to a remap, the defence has the write to cross examine this evidence, which means a Volvo representative will have to turn up to court to be cross examined. But it is likely they won't turn up and they have no legal obligation to. Volvo do not do remaps and do not recommend them and therefore do not specialise in them. Shark, on the other hand does specialise in tunning Volvos and likely to argue successfully that Volvo's finding is without foundation due to their inexperience with remaps, especially if they can back this up with reports/Volvo bulletins/recall history that your car could have been one of those affected. What could really put a nasty end to your court case is if Shark can produce a witness i.e. a satisfied customer who has a vehicle with same drivetrain as yours, similar mileage/ service history who was happy with a remap.

The judges do not like these messy cases and rely on something called 'The balance of Probability' to determine who is right and who is wrong. in other words, the side who has most reasonable/strong evidence/case to prove their point, wins.

I think, in my professional opinion, the fact that you 'tried to live so long with the problem' so soon after the remap could be negative point against you. If Shark are able to produce examples of successful remaps to exactly the same vehicles as yours could reinforce their position. But this also depends on Volvo's report into the condition of your vehicle and what is likely to have caused it. If Volvo find something broken they will need to provide information what would have been the minimum force/moment/torque required to make a given part to fail in a vehicle of similar mileage/age/service history as yours. Then either Shark or you will need to find an independent 'expert' who will testify whether the remap would have (or not) caused the force/moment/torque applied to this part to exceed the minimum breaking point, hence causing the part to fail - or not.

But this is all jumping the gun, The three things that matter right now is that your car is been fixed, you need to file an official complaint with Shark (without this you are dead in the water, legally speaking) and wait for Volvo's findings.

Just another thing, if you go down the courts option, Shark will have the option to counter claim against you using your own claim. If the judge finds that they are not at fault, the judge can rule there and then against you and order you to pay compensation for loss of business to Shark due to negative publicity. That is why you sometimes do not hear about landmark cases in the news until after the courts have ruled (exception: human rights cases), for fear that either party can sue the other for negative publicity, especially, if a commercial organisation is involved. That is why the courts always encourage parties to try to resolve disputes between themselves or using third-party organisation (ombudsmen/industry experts-advisors - who observe Data Protection Act). Again, if you file this case to courts too soon and it gets thrown out before it is heard because you have not given Shark enough time to rectify the matter, the judge can still rule that you need to reimburse Shark for loss of business due to negative publicity. And this opens up the doors for Shark to take legal action against you for any additional loss of business as a result. But this is nothing to worry about if you give Shark the opportunity to rectify this and you have really solid evidence from Volvo or any other credible source that makes you certain that you will win the case. If your evidence is really that good, Shark would not want this case to be heard in court and is likely to settle out of court.

Hope this has shed some light on how this case could be unfolding, and sorry for the very long post. Feel free to pick at it but at the end only a judge's pen will seal the ultimate outcome to this dispute (if it ever comes to that). As the judges in consumer/commercial disputes are the law! (as much as it pains me to say )