Bongo Fury

I can - sort of - 'understand' what the garage means by this part being 'bodywork'. I'm guessing that it's a pressed metal component which carries the suspension parts but is not a component which suffers from suspension 'wear' as such - ie: the warranty would cover the bushes and ball joints, etc, on this arm, but this part itself is just a kind of 'carrier' of suspension parts which should keep on going...

However, I personally think they are pushing what constitutes 'bodywork' way too far...!

(I'm happy to email 'Honest John' for an opinion if you like - or will you do it yourself?)

Was the warranty supplied by the selling garage themselves, or was it 3rd-party like from Warranty Direct? Have you read the details of parts covered?

What a pain about the money you had to fork out - unfortunately, the warranty garage has no obligation to cover these bills unless it was agreed with them beforehand - which is fair enough as they would have preferred to have done the work themselves, thereby saving the labour costs. I'd have thought they'd be prepared to pay for the parts at least tho'?

You need to find out from an independent source where you stand - don't just roll over and accept what they say without clarifying it first.

(If this was down to corrosion, then perhaps this is a useful warning to the rest of us to inject inside these sections - I think I recall there were holes into which this could be done?)

I wonder if this is another case of north vs southern Japan sourced Bongos. The worst corrosion I've seen is certainly on northern, winter spec ones

You either get corrosion and choked cooling systems from the north or brittle, faded plastics and disintegrating steering wheels from the south............

Trouble at t'Mill wrote: You need to find out from an independent source where you stand - don't just roll over and accept what they say without clarifying it first.

Hopefully the situation in Scotland is the same as here - if so - I think this is a case for both Trading Standards
Environmental Health & Trading Standards
5 Inchmuir Road Whitehill Ind Est Bathgate EH48 2EP
Fax 01506 776414
Opening Hours
Mon - Thurs 8.30-17.00
Fri 8.30-16.00

and VOSA (who regulate MOT stations)

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/m ... esters.htm

As it could be argued that the vehicle was not fit for sale and the MOT was "fiddled" if damage to the arm is as advanced as it would appear.

I think a word with the garage to the effect that if the vehicle isn't put into good order at no cost whatsoever to yourselves (inc. what you've already paid out!) you will be inviting those two organisations to investigate the matter further is a good idea.

scanner wrote:

Trouble at t'Mill wrote: You need to find out from an independent source where you stand - don't just roll over and accept what they say without clarifying it first.

Hopefully the situation in Scotland is the same as here - if so - I think this is a case for both Trading Standards
Environmental Health & Trading Standards
5 Inchmuir Road Whitehill Ind Est Bathgate EH48 2EP
Fax 01506 776414
Opening Hours
Mon - Thurs 8.30-17.00
Fri 8.30-16.00

and VOSA (who regulate MOT stations)

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/m ... esters.htm

As it could be argued that the vehicle was not fit for sale and the MOT was "fiddled" if damage to the arm is as advanced as it would appear.

I think a word with the garage to the effect that if the vehicle isn't put into good order at no cost whatsoever to yourselves (inc. what you've already paid out!) you will be inviting those two organisations to investigate the matter further is a good idea.

This is now a problem,

I am annoyed as when the van was sent to the garage, the old suspension arm was in my van for the warranty garage to inspect, but they have now given it to the scrap man with out consulting me.

scanner wrote:

Trouble at t'Mill wrote: You need to find out from an independent source where you stand - don't just roll over and accept what they say without clarifying it first.

Hopefully the situation in Scotland is the same as here - if so - I think this is a case for both Trading Standards
Environmental Health & Trading Standards
5 Inchmuir Road Whitehill Ind Est Bathgate EH48 2EP
Fax 01506 776414
Opening Hours
Mon - Thurs 8.30-17.00
Fri 8.30-16.00

and VOSA (who regulate MOT stations)

http://www.transportoffice.gov.uk/crt/m ... esters.htm

As it could be argued that the vehicle was not fit for sale and the MOT was "fiddled" if damage to the arm is as advanced as it would appear.

I think a word with the garage to the effect that if the vehicle isn't put into good order at no cost whatsoever to yourselves (inc. what you've already paid out!) you will be inviting those two organisations to investigate the matter further is a good idea.

I agree 100% with scanner. An independent examiner looking at the evidence (which is why it must not be thrown away - why was it - did one place speak with the other?) is quite likely to be able to say the condition was poor when MOT was done i.e. was the vehicle really fit to drive when sold to you. All this warranty stuff is just guff if so. I would take a diplomatic but robust line if I were you. To the garage that threw the wishbone etc. away I imagine myself having a dialgoue that goes:

Q: Why did you throw it away
A: Because it was rubbish - useless
Q: Why, what was wrong with it
A: It had gone right through
Q: But how?
A: Dunno, must either have been corroded or already have had some kind of stress damage

Then you summarise that in a nice letter to them which, unless they care to contradict in a written reply, they are deemed to have accepted (and why not - that's what they said).

You then add this letter to the folio of testaments etc. that you have ready to present to the regulatory authorities. Because one thing seems certain:

There is almost no way this could have happened spontaneously. There had to have been a fault that was already present before you bought it, and when it was MOT'd by the vendor

The 'willingness' of the vendor to fix it even though it is not a warranty item, suggests they know very well this is the truth and that they would rather not have you poking around it.

Trouble is if Vosa get involved, be prepared not to see your bongo for a loooong time

If it needs to be the way to resolve the matter, it might be the only way.

The inconvenience of that could well pale into insignificance compared to that "enjoyed" by the garage.

I was hoping to see the arms but the fact it's been "chucked" is interesting - maybe someone didn't want to se what had happened in 9 months since the MOT

Insist that the other arm is returned to you - it's your only evidence.

Hi Dandywarhol,
Was it a Scottish dealer that you purchased the Bongo from? I'm just about to purchase a Bongo so i'd be interested to hear who the dealer is...

Wasn't my vehicle Branwell - I was just interfering..............

Maybe best to send a PM to pennycook

another update.
finally got my Bongo back safe and sound! got half of the sheared suspension arm and it looks as though the cause was rust. I have had the other arm replaced as it also had a line of perforated rust holes that looked like they could have gone the same way. I telephone VOSA to make a complaint and was advised they could not investigate as it was over three months (which is the cut of date for rust issues) they advised me to give them a report which will be logged against the garage. I also phoned trading standards and they said it was a difficult case as the vehicle was old and they thought I would not get the support of the courts as I would have to prove the arm should not have snapped (not likely as it was probably 13 years old).

I have to say the garage from which I purchased the vehicle was business like. I had to pay a contribution to have the remaining arm replaced and the drive shaft which was damaged. (I had already replaced the sheared arm.) Although the garage said they would honour the warranty, this particular fault was not covered on the warranty, as a suspension arm was classed as body work. still I feel they have met me half way and been very business like about it when according to trading standards I had to rely on their good will.

More importantly i want to thank everyone for their support, especially Dandywarhol, Maybe we will catch up with you all at one of the bashes! thanks again

Pennycooks wrote: this particular fault was not covered on the warranty, as a suspension arm was classed as body work.

A suspension arm moves and works - bodywork doesn't do either.

I'd be very interested to see how that definition can be justified.

scanner wrote:

Pennycooks wrote: this particular fault was not covered on the warranty, as a suspension arm was classed as body work.

A suspension arm moves and works - bodywork doesn't do either.

I'd be very interested to see how that definition can be justified.

Yup, judging from their actions they knew they had done a bad thing selling a Bongo in that condition. But at least they sort of made things right and - hopefully - all that can now become a fading bad memory and the new Bongo be enjoyed.

Pennycooks.

Can you clarify, please?

YOU paid for ALL of the first - failed - suspension arm? You then paid a contribution towards the OTHER arm AND the first drive shaft?

Do you mind telling us what the sums involved were - both for you and the garage's part?

Was the MOT carried out by the same - selling - garage?

Thanks.

Hi again, Pennycooks.

'Honest John' is of the opinion you should simply take the matter to the Small Claims Court - the judge would quickly decide whether a suspension part was 'bodywork' or not...

The way I see it - legally - is, anything you went ahead and had repaired with a different garage without the express 'go-ahead' of the supplying garage is on your head - the supplying garage doesn't have to reimburse you. And that's fair enough, imo.

I wonder what they would have said if you'd contacted them first - would they have recovered the car themselves (even if charging you a transport charge)?

However, I believe the supplying garage should then FULLY cover the cost of the second wishbone AND the drive shaft - no question. (Provided the warranty covered 'suspension' components, which it obviously does.)

And I'm pretty certain the SCC judge would agree.

Whether it's worth it is obviously up to you. Should you feel it might even be worth testing the water over this, the first step would be to the garage them know you've taken 'advice' and firmly believe they are in the wrong. Explain you are prepared to take it to SCC and also inform Trading Standards.

All depends on how the costs are divided at the moment - you seem to imply they met you at a reasonable point?

Imo, you should only have to pay for the original repair which you had done without their authority - that's it.