Customer service at its worst

Tommymcsh

The worst customer service I ve ever experienced. After buying a car that cost 14,000€ and was not even 5 years old and 40k on clock the engine exploded, 4 weeks out of warranty, <Snip> motors didn't want to know, with a repair bill of €9840.00 for a compete new engine they simply turned their backs and even avoided my numerous phone calls.
I was left to fight my corner against the manufacturer to try and come to an amicable agreement for the repair while <Snip> didn't even bother contacting me or manufacturers.
The car was also back in <Snip> 3 times before this to fix the horn, 3 days with no car and the hassle of dropping it across city on 3 separate occasions.
If I sound bitter it's because I am, I wasn't looking for a new car or bill covered but some help would have been nice!
Avoid this garage at all costs!

ba_barabus

What kind of car?

How many miles?

What did the garage do to try remedy this?

What exactly was wrong?

Why didn't you reject it?

Was there a written guarantee?

Why did you only sign up now to b!tch about the garage?

djimi

What was the problem with the engine?

What car is it if you dont mind me asking? €10k for an engine change is astronomical.

ba_barabus

Who did you deal with in the garage?

George Dalton

I presume the €9k repair bill is a main dealer quote.

Did you go to the garage where you bought the car after the engine problem happened or did you just go straight to a main dealer?

Tommymcsh

ba_barabus wrote: »

Who did you deal with in the garage?

Dealt with the owner.
A4 08 1.8t, 44k at purchase 49k when engine went.
Timing chain tensioner failed and timing chain slipped and completely destroyed engine.
<Snip> didn't want to know cause I was 40 days outside my 6 month warranty.

It's only being repaired now

Tommymcsh

Quote: ba_barabus
Who did you deal with in the garage?


Dealt with the owner.
A4 08 1.8t, 44k at purchase 49k when engine went.
Timing chain tensioner failed and timing chain slipped and completely destroyed engine.
<Snip> didn't want to know cause I was 40 days outside my 6 month warranty.

It's only being repaired now

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

It's only being repaired now

Who is paying for it and who is repairing it?

Tommymcsh

Audi north are doing repair.
Bill is being paid for between Audi Ireland and myself, they are coveting most of the bill.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

Audi north are doing repair.
Bill is being paid for between Audi Ireland and myself, they are coveting most of the bill.

Did the <Snip> claim it had a new belt and tensioner when they sold it?

ironclaw

You only did 5000km in 6 months? Or am I reading that right? 30km a day on average? I'd do that in 8 weeks or less.

As bad and all as it is, 40 days is more than a month outside the warranty period that they offered. Had you been a week out I'd probably say then in the interest of customer service they should honor it however legally they don't have to. The car was obviously fit for purpose as it had lasted 6 months and 5000km at the time of the problem. It was probably due a service or at least a check up at that point. Was it ever serviced or checked in the interval?

So, when do you draw the line? A week? 10 days? 6 months? In their defence, and I have no affiliation at all, your outside the warranty period by a wide margin. Any warranty or cover they offer is off their own backs and out of good will at this stage. I wouldn't be slating them online. Its 40 days, not 4 days.

djimi

The car was over a month outside of a 6 month warranty; irrespective of the cost of repairs I dont really see why you think <Snip> are responsible unless you can somehow prove that negligence on their part contributed to the damage?

You are getting goodwill from Audi (quite generous of them I would have thought for a repair on a 5 year old car), so why the need to go slinging mud at a dealer who has completed their obligation to you?

Tommymcsh

djimi wrote: »

The car was over a month outside of a 6 month warranty; irrespective of the cost of repairs I dont really see why you think <Snip> are responsible unless you can somehow prove that negligence on their part contributed to the damage?

You are getting goodwill from Audi (quite generous of them I would have thought for a repair on a 5 year old car), so why the need to go slinging mud at a dealer who has completed their obligation to you?

It's the lack of communication and avoiding of phone calls and not bothering to assist me with my complaint with manufacture that I m complaining about.
A lot of un busy car dealers on here?

mitosis

djimi wrote: »

The car was over a month outside of a 6 month warranty; irrespective of the cost of repairs I dont really see why you think <Snip> are responsible unless you can somehow prove that negligence on their part contributed to the damage?

You are getting goodwill from Audi (quite generous of them I would have thought for a repair on a 5 year old car), so why the need to go slinging mud at a dealer who has completed their obligation to you?

I agree with djimi. In fact I think the name of the dealer should be removed from your posts as they have done nothing improper

mullingar

@ OP. Go talk to your solicitor if your share of the repair bill is excessive.

There *may* be grounds under the Sale of Goods act and your solicitor will advise. It could be the best €50-€100 you spent for consultation.

Red Crow

Tommymcsh wrote: »

It's the lack of communication and avoiding of phone calls and not bothering to assist me with my complaint with manufacture that I m complaining about.
A lot of un busy car dealers on here?

Why would you be ringing <Snip> about a complaint about your car over a month out of a 6 month warranty?

Seems like you were unfortunate and these things happen but it's nothing to do with <Snip>.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

A lot of un busy car dealers on here?

Not really.

I was trying to establish all the facts before someone jumped in but it does seem they were under no obligation to you. It's up to you to contact Audi really as you were outside of warranty.

Now I was asking about them doing the t/belt as if you had it in writing that they did it would make things a little different.

Tommymcsh

mitosis wrote: »

I agree with djimi. In fact I think the name of the dealer should be removed from your posts as they have done nothing improper

It's there lack of customer service I m complaining about, no reply to emails and having to chase them down for days on the phone to get simple questions answered about the car. Is that too much for a car dealer to do?
So I won't be removing the name

Red Crow

mullingar wrote: »

@ OP. Go talk to your solicitor.

There *may* be grounds under the Sale of Goods act and your solicitor will advise. It could be the best €50-€100 you spent for consultation.

For what? The car was used for 7 months+ at that stage. In the eyes of the legal profession you always have a case.

There is no grounds here. If he bought it new and only got a 6 month warranty then it went after that then yes I could understand his case.

However a 08 car which has been under multiple owners and served its current period of warranty cannot be the responsibility of the reseller after 7 months.

Kenny Logins

Sounds like they may be guilty of poor customer service, as in not returning calls or whatever, but maybe that's the best way to deal with customers that are stampy footing a full 40 days after their warranty has expired, I don't know, I'm not in the trade.

Bad luck is all, but on the positive side, Audi are helping you out on this.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

So I won't be removing the name

You won't have a choice

Actually though I'm pretty impressed by Audi and their good will gesture. A better idea might be to post the details about that as it could be useful for others.

Chris_Heilong

In fairness lads the guy is on about the poor customer service as per the title and it does sound like they were being dodgy about the whole thing, any business that is scared or avoiding customers because they dont want to deal with someone demanding this and that seems to be bad practice. Anyway from the OP I take it this tread is more of a rant.

bobin fudge

the thread is about "customer service"

OP has stated that they ignored his calls, emails, very hard to get hold off etc. OP wanted some assistance in how to go about contacting Audi or the best solution. He never once said that <Snip> should give him a new engine for free under warranty. After spending 14k on a car, id hope/expect the dealer to at least provide some information assistance. Granted they may not be obliged to but it does seem pretty shabby.

That to me sounds like poor customer service

Regarding the warranty etc that is different/seperate and has been repeated to death now by everyone posting their comments on here

BGozIE

The OP has every right to be aggrieved, surely most of you have been at the wrong end of terrible customer service. Add that to the fact his fairly new car needs a 10k job done. I can understand the OP not being on top of the world.

That being said, you are out of warranty and the car is old enough. The garage should have accommodated you with the info you needed, but have no obligation to help you re repairs.

I am glad Audi are however.

P.S I've heard too many horror stories form Audi now, definitely the next car wont be one

djimi

Apologies, youre absolutely right, their customer service was pretty poor. At least you are getting the issue sorted now.

Tommymcsh

As per title of thread it's about bad customer service. I am fully aware of warranty and age etc. wasn't looking for garage to pay bill or anything of the sort just a response and assistance with my struggle against Audi.
So please read the title before you jump in telling me facts I m fully aware of.

Tommymcsh

Tommymcsh wrote: »

As per title of thread it's about bad customer service. I am fully aware of warranty and age etc. wasn't looking for garage to pay bill or anything of the sort just a response and assistance with my struggle against Audi.
So please read the title before you jump in telling me facts I m fully aware of.

No problem.
It's been going on for 7 weeks now and I just felt that with the help of the garage it could have been resolved at this stage.
7 weeks of having no car!
If anyone has similar problem with manufacture keep arguing with them and get as much technical info as possible because they will budge inventually.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

No problem.
It's been going on for 7 weeks now and I just felt that with the help of the garage it could have been resolved at this stage.
7 weeks of having no car!
If anyone has similar problem with manufacture keep arguing with them and get as much technical info as possible because they will budge inventually.

I assume that's in reply to me. Did you present them with other peoples stories from the net? Did they refuse you initially? How much % wise are they contributing?

galwaytt

ironclaw wrote: »

The car was obviously fit for purpose as it had lasted 6 months and 5000km at the time of the problem.

...I'd take strong issue with that tbh - a 2008 A4, with only 49k kms on it, that summarily destroys itself - irrespective of the garage warranty - is by no means 'fit for pupose'.

To quote the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, the goods must be of merchantable quality, to wit: "Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them"

Assuming the Audi is serviced to schedule, then the case is whether an Audi is expected to be durable beyond 49k kms.

...or is that a rhetorical question ?

That said:

Tommymcsh wrote: »

Audi north are doing repair.
Bill is being paid for between Audi Ireland and myself, they are coveting most of the bill.

...if the amount (even if only a 'paper' valuation) being covered by Audi is substantial, then it would appear that Audi Ireland are stepping up.

The supplying dealer on the otoh should have been able, and should have made the same effort as your current repairer to get it sorted. In that respect then, and going back to the thread title, the supplying dealer has been sub-par.

Tommymcsh

ba_barabus wrote: »

I assume that's in reply to me. Did you present them with other peoples stories from the net? Did they refuse you initially? How much % wise are they contributing?

Yea I found similar incidents on the Audi forums.
It was audi north that faught my case with Audi Ireland and they couldn't have done more, it was a fail safe mechanism that failed so Audi contributed 80% plus of c

Henry Ford III

Tommymcsh wrote: »

Audi north are doing repair.
Bill is being paid for between Audi Ireland and myself, they are coveting most of the bill.

Doesn't sound too bad an outcome tbh. It was out of warranty after all.

biko

Tommymcsh wrote: »

Avoid this garage at all costs!

Tommymcsh wrote: »

So I won't be removing the name

Not to worry, I did it for you.

I'm sorry about the car breaking but regging onto boards to name and shame a garage that wouldn't help you fight your corner against Audi for something that wasn't the garage's fault is not ok.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

Yea I found similar incidents on the Audi forums.
It was audi north that faught my case with Audi Ireland and they couldn't have done more, it was a fail safe mechanism that failed so Audi contributed 80% plus of c

Bloody hell that's good.

Fair play to Audi North and Audi IRL.

ironclaw

galwaytt wrote: »

...I'd take strong issue with that tbh - a 2008 A4, with only 49k kms on it, that summarily destroys itself - irrespective of the garage warranty - is by no means 'fit for pupose'.

To quote the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980, the goods must be of merchantable quality, to wit: "Goods are of merchantable quality if they are as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought and as durable as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them"

Assuming the Audi is serviced to schedule, then the case is whether an Audi is expected to be durable beyond 49k kms.

...or is that a rhetorical question ?

As has been said, the car is over 5 years old, possible multiple owners and was covered by a 6 month warranty. Its also second (or third or fourth) hand at this stage. As such reasonable wear and tear would come into effect. The car was also good for 6 months plus an additional 40 days. It passed any doubt of 'fit for purpose' in my book.

You have to draw the line somewhere. So ask yourself, when do you consider a car having passed for 'fit for purpose'? 5 years? 20 years? At the end of its life? Because all those would encompass 'fit for purpose'. What exactly is 'fit for purpose' in the case of a car? The Act also makes clause for reasonable wear and tear, such is the case here in my view. The retailer made good on his promise to cover the car for 6 months and the buyer accepted that. The buyer accepted the terms of the sale.

How they handled the case, ok maybe it wasn't the nicest but has no bearing on Sale of Goods etc etc. Thats down to an individual retailer. And having weighed up all the above, they didn't act out of line in my book. I wouldn't expect a company to cover me 40 days out of warranty.

There are hard working retailers in Ireland who put up with this nonsense, high horse 'Sales of Goods Act' etc every day and it really erks me. People need to start seeing it from the retailer side in some instances (Obviously excluding obvious cowboys and mis-representation)

djimi

Im not sure that a timing chain tensioner would be expected to fail at 49000km, and I think that there would be a good case for goodwill from the manufacturer should this happen. Seeing as the manufacturer is offering goodwill, I suspect they agree that the damage is not reasonable wear and tear, nor would the car fall under "fit for purpose" with a wrecked engine due to this fault after 49000km.

Chimaera

From what I can see, these engines use a timing belt, which is scheduled for change at 120 000 km or 5 years, whichever comes first. The time limit usually applies to the rubber belt, since rubber degrades over time. The distance requirement has more to do with the tensioner, which is the part that has failed here according to the OP.

On that basis, I'd say it's reasonable to expect that a car at 49 000 km should not have suffered a tensioner failure (though being right up on the 5 year limit it's a bit grey).

So to those arguing about the fitness for purpose, the fitness here is that the component(s) would last for their design lifetime. If they don't last that long, they are not fit for purpose and I would argue that the manufacturer is on the hook for the failure. The supplying dealer has an obligation then to facilitate the owner in pursuing their claim against the manufacturer.

(What happens here is that there's effectively a chain of command: Retailer->Wholesaler->Manufacturer->Component Manufacturer. Each will chase the one higher up for the cost of the repair or some portion of it as they deem them to be responsible for. The retailer then has the obligation of satisfying the customer.)

I reckon Audi Ireland did well on this one to only be paying 80 % of the cost, and I'm pretty sure the cost to them is far less than the €9800 to begin with too. But it's probably the best the OP can do without dragging this through the courts.

Tommymcsh

Chimaera wrote: »

From what I can see, these engines use a timing belt, which is scheduled for change at 120 000 km or 5 years, whichever comes first. The time limit usually applies to the rubber belt, since rubber degrades over time. The distance requirement has more to do with the tensioner, which is the part that has failed here according to the OP.

On that basis, I'd say it's reasonable to expect that a car at 49 000 km should not have suffered a tensioner failure (though being right up on the 5 year limit it's a bit grey).

So to those arguing about the fitness for purpose, the fitness here is that the component(s) would last for their design lifetime. If they don't last that long, they are not fit for purpose and I would argue that the manufacturer is on the hook for the failure. The supplying dealer has an obligation then to facilitate the owner in pursuing their claim against the manufacturer.

(What happens here is that there's effectively a chain of command: Retailer->Wholesaler->Manufacturer->Component Manufacturer. Each will chase the one higher up for the cost of the repair or some portion of it as they deem them to be responsible for. The retailer then has the obligation of satisfying the customer.)

I reckon Audi Ireland did well on this one to only be paying 80 % of the cost, and I'm pretty sure the cost to them is far less than the €9800 to begin with too. But it's probably the best the OP can do without dragging this through the courts.

It's a chain not a belt, they don't need changing

Tommymcsh

biko wrote: »

Not to worry, I did it for you.

I'm sorry about the car breaking but regging onto boards to name and shame a garage that wouldn't help you fight your corner against Audi for something that wasn't the garage's fault is not ok.

It's about the lack of customer service, read the title!

Soarer

Who is this <snip> garage everyone's talking about? Stupid name.

Tommymcsh

ironclaw wrote: »

As has been said, the car is over 5 years old, possible multiple owners and was covered by a 6 month warranty. Its also second (or third or fourth) hand at this stage. As such reasonable wear and tear would come into effect. The car was also good for 6 months plus an additional 40 days. It passed any doubt of 'fit for purpose' in my book.

You have to draw the line somewhere. So ask yourself, when do you consider a car having passed for 'fit for purpose'? 5 years? 20 years? At the end of its life? Because all those would encompass 'fit for purpose'. What exactly is 'fit for purpose' in the case of a car? The Act also makes clause for reasonable wear and tear, such is the case here in my view. The retailer made good on his promise to cover the car for 6 months and the buyer accepted that. The buyer accepted the terms of the sale.

How they handled the case, ok maybe it wasn't the nicest but has no bearing on Sale of Goods etc etc. Thats down to an individual retailer. And having weighed up all the above, they didn't act out of line in my book. I wouldn't expect a company to cover me 40 days out of warranty.

There are hard working retailers in Ireland who put up with this nonsense, high horse 'Sales of Goods Act' etc every day and it really erks me. People need to start seeing it from the retailer side in some instances (Obviously excluding obvious cowboys and mis-representation)

High horse!
It's a sale of goods act, it's the law.
Get a grip

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

High horse!
It's a sale of goods act, it's the law.
Get a grip

But I thought this was about customer service not the sale of a faulty good?

Chimaera

It's a chain not a belt, they don't need changing

Actually yes they do, just less often than belts. It's a common misconception.

Tommymcsh

Tommymcsh wrote: »

High horse!
It's a sale of goods act, it's the law.
Get a grip

I never said I expected to be covered when 40 days outside warranty, please read the thread. Idiot.

ba_barabus

Tommymcsh wrote: »

I never said I expected to be covered when 40 days outside warranty, please read the thread. Idiot.

Why am I an idiot?

I never said you expected to be covered. You've gone on about how it's about poor customer service yet you are referring to the sale of goods act yourself?

The way you are carrying on here I'm not surprised the garage were reluctant to deal with you.

galwaytt

ironclaw wrote: »

As has been said, the car is over 5 years old, possible multiple owners and was covered by a 6 month warranty. Its also second (or third or fourth) hand at this stage. As such reasonable wear and tear would come into effect. The car was also good for 6 months plus an additional 40 days. It passed any doubt of 'fit for purpose' in my book.

You have to draw the line somewhere. So ask yourself, when do you consider a car having passed for 'fit for purpose'? 5 years? 20 years? At the end of its life? Because all those would encompass 'fit for purpose'. What exactly is 'fit for purpose' in the case of a car? The Act also makes clause for reasonable wear and tear, such is the case here in my view. The retailer made good on his promise to cover the car for 6 months and the buyer accepted that. The buyer accepted the terms of the sale.

How they handled the case, ok maybe it wasn't the nicest but has no bearing on Sale of Goods etc etc. Thats down to an individual retailer. And having weighed up all the above, they didn't act out of line in my book. I wouldn't expect a company to cover me 40 days out of warranty.

There are hard working retailers in Ireland who put up with this nonsense, high horse 'Sales of Goods Act' etc every day and it really erks me. People need to start seeing it from the retailer side in some instances (Obviously excluding obvious cowboys and mis-representation)

You're missing the point: that part should last more than 49k kms. No of owners etc is completely irrelevant. Even the issue if garage warranty is secondary; the issue is whether that engine should be expected to last longer than 49k kms.

If Audi Ireland are stepping up here, they obviously think so too - so why would you disagree ?

Tommymcsh

ba_barabus wrote: »

Why am I an idiot?

I never said you expected to be covered. You've gone on about how it's about poor customer service yet you are referring to the sale of goods act yourself?

The way you are carrying on here I'm not surprised the garage were reluctant to deal with you.

Apologies, it was ironclaw I was talking about, he was stating that he wouldn't expect to be covered after 40 days and also the "high horse" sales of good act.
I never referred to any act or said I d expect cover when out of warranty.

Tommymcsh

Thanks for the views as to what is considered reasonable customer service, car is back next week and it didn't cost anywhere near the original 9840€,
Some of you guys need to get out more, you know who u are