Polo GTI High Oil Usage - Discussion Thread

[Melon Head]

Peacock v ACM Liverpool Pty Ltd, Volkswagen Group Aust (Motor Vehicle) [2012] NSWCTTT 447 (1 November 2012)

I want to give that person a beer

[gavs]

THANK GOD!!!!!! I don't know if they were a forum user but this is what I have been saying for the past 3 years people.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH VGA *****.

This is what consumer laws are for. VGA have sold you a piece of crap car, you are entitled to a refund. Woiuld you accept it if you bought a defective TV or fridge?

Good bloody job Ross Peacock, you are a legend!

[kawabanga]

Please, help me to better understand, in the link above is stated a refund's order or it's just lawsuit still to be finalized...?

In the first case, WOW, nice shot...!!

[RoknRob]

Good on him for taking on VW!

But at the moment, he hasn't won...

He didn't help himself by not letting the interested parties have a chance to repair the problem - even if we all know there is no guaranteed solution, he's gotta give them the chance...

Hopefully this will lead to the outcome we all want...

[Diesel_vert]

Peacock v ACM Liverpool Pty Ltd, Volkswagen Group Aust (Motor Vehicle) [2012] NSWCTTT 447 (1 November 2012)

The guy wanted a refund for his car (rather than have it repaired) based on a report from an independent mechanic, and for the most part, refused to let the dealer or VW take a look at it.

Car is still under warranty.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the car was not of acceptable quality and did not order a refund.

The Tribunal ordered that he make his car available to the dealer for them to inspect it and repair any faults that are found.

[RoknRob]

I wonder if there is a way others affected could get involved - to lend weight to the claim. Maybe turn it into a class action...

[Guy_H]

That's a great start - might pay to start a more official "action group" where people can register & document their complaints.

[gavs]

Polo GTI High Oil Usage - Discussion Thread

Yes, exactly. While this is an isolated case, if all parties that are having the same oil consumption issues contact the party involved to add weight to his claim, as well as us who have no oil consumption issues to show that it is not "normal" then that could be very helpful for Mr Peacock and those of you with this issue. What do I want out of this? Well, let me put it this way... How much will a Polo GTI be realistically worth out of warranty when I go to trade it in or sell it? Red book values a 3 year old polo GTI already at ~$18,000....

[ATYPIC]

As well as us who have no oil consumption issues to show. Red book values a 3 year old polo GTI already at ~$18,000....

It's an understatement to say I'm fortunate to fall into this category...however that red book figure of $18K is absurd and a huge concern.

Whether you have a problematic GTI or not, I don't believe many will have much success selling up either now or in the future as this vehicle's reputation has suffered severely and most will steer well clear.

[Diesel_vert]

Well, I wouldn't approach the situation in the manner Mr Peacock did, because after going through all that, he's basically back to square one.

[Guy_H]

yes, it's a double edged sword (the approach) - it may make VW and their dealers treat complaints in a different manner. If this happens, we all may be better off, lets hope so!

[brad]

I think I've mentioned previously that my mate got his Volvo replaced after giving the dealer several opportunities to resolve driveline vibrations. Volvo AUS & the dealer supplied him with a new vehicle. In 1 month of ownership with the new vehicle he experienced several faults. They gave him his money back.

It wasn't difficult & he didn't have to involve lawyers.

I'm not quite sure why so many of you are sitting on your hands & not making use of your statutory warranty.

[Zakarados]

I think if you are having oil consumption issues and they have replaced your engine, its time to get a refund...

I will be back at my dealer for a oil consumption test as I just went over 5,000km and have had more then 5L of oil 'topped up'. Hopefully get an engine replacement, then if I still loose 1L/1000km, its time to demand a refund. (or a golf R, hehe)

[RoknRob]

I think I've mentioned previously that my mate got his Volvo replaced after giving the dealer several opportunities to resolve driveline vibrations. Volvo AUS & the dealer supplied him with a new vehicle. In 1 month of ownership with the new vehicle he experienced several faults. They gave him his money back.

It wasn't difficult & he didn't have to involve lawyers.

I'm not quite sure why so many of you are sitting on your hands & not making use of your statutory warranty.

Maybe most people are in my situation - very borderline oil consumption. Enough to need to be way more watchful than you should have to be these days, but not enough to be "out of spec".

I agree, though, if they've already agreed your problem is severe enough to warrant a new engine, you've got a great case...

My hope is that this kind of action will prompt a proper fix, implemented by a recall - because I otherwise love this car!

[RossP]

Hi, I am here people, but have never posted before. I will have a bit more to say very soon, but let me say just a couple of things here and now. Firstly, Maritsa Eftimiou, the CTTT chairperson has not been at all accurate in her summary and went out of her way from day 1 to make out that I had done the wrong thing somehow. I am attempting to take her actions and statements to the chairperson at present. Whether I get a fair hearing or not remains to be seen. But to suggest that I did not give the dealer a chance to diagnose or fix the car is ridiculous. Before I get on to that though, there is something about the CTTT decision that you all should take into consideration.

That is this- an oil consumption test WAS done before I took the case to the CTTT. The dealer claims that the car used 300mls of oil in that test and refused to repair the car, stating that everything was in spec. Despite that, the CTTT has decided that the car is faulty and has ordered it back to be diagnosed and repaired. Therefore, if your car uses 300mls of oil, I would urge you to point out this decision to your dealer and demand that it be repaired, or take it to Fair Trading and the CTTT and quote my case.

Now, just a little about why I took it to CTTT and approached things the way I have. The car had heavy oil use from day 1, about a litre for the first tank of fuel. It very quickly developed a heavy detonation problem due to carbon build up. The dealer couldn't diagnose the detonation issues, even though their mechanic drove it and acknowledged hearing it detonate, it didn't show up on the ECU diagnostics, so they declared the car fault free. After 7 months of repeatedly reporting oil usage and detonation, they agreed to an oil consumption test. I believed the car used around 600mls going by the dipstick and the way I drove it for the test. They gave me a set of figures stating that the oil was measured at 4.1 litres at the start of the test, 3.8 litres at the end. They then posted me the service invoice a few days later which stated the oil consumption at the start of the test was 3.8 litres, with 3.5 litres at the end. While they had the car, they had also updated the ECU with software designed to fix misfires. When asked for evidence of the misfires, they refused to give me any diagnostic information and the service manager stated that misfires and detonation were the same thing as far as he was concerned. He declared that oil consumption was in spec and that he had fixed the car with the ECU upgrade. That particular ECU upgrade was nothing but a disaster, heavy fuel consumption, major transmission changes resulting in clutch shudder. However, he told me (George Rallis, service manager) that if I maintained that anything was wrong with the car, then I would have to prove it, as far as he was concerned, there was nothing wrong with it.
So I had that choice or take some sort of legal action. Now, it needs to be remembered that there is a vast difference between your statutory rights of warranty and advertised warranties. It's easy for a manufacturer to find some loophole to get out of advertised warranties outside of the statutory warranty period. Did you realise that the owners manual tells you that you MUST keep the oil level within Zone A at all times during summer & on motorways or mountain passes? That is within 250ml of maximum!! Most of us burn more than that per tank. Let it drop and they could breach your warranty......
So - sell the car to some other poor sucker for $29,000 in Nov 2011 - no I couldn't do it. They would have cursed me. Sorry, but I care about things like that.
So, I chose to take CTTT action before the statutory warranty expired - 12 months folks and the dealer is 100% responsible under legislation. The manufacturer only becomes liable if the dealer defaults on a consumer guarantee!

About the CTTT action. I have alluded to the report being highly inaccurate. I don't intend to open myself up to action, but it is in the public domain now. I will make the recordings available on vwpologti.com very soon & post back here with updates.

Just as an example, member Maritsa Eftimiou states that the matter was first heard in April 2012. Baloney. It was first heard at a directions hearing in January 2012 before acting senior member Sabine Thode. At that hearing I again stated that I was willing to accept an offer of repair if the dealer made one there and then. They refused. She then asked them to make an offer of a cash refund or replacement vehicle, which they also refused. She then directed that the car was not going back to them for further diagnosis, but that I was to obtain an independent mechanical report at my own cost. They were directed that upon receipt of my report, to obtain their own independent report in reply at their own cost. They were specifically instructed not to turn up at the next hearing with only service invoices. They were also directed to strongly consider making an offer of refund before the next hearing.

So what happened? They turned up with service invoices and a story about me refusing to give the car back to them for diagnosis. Member Thode had been replaced by member Eftimiou, who went on to ignore and deny everything member Thode had said or done, stating that the hearing of April was the first one. She then accused me of piling up evidence against the dealer without giving them an opportunity to diagnose or repair. I smelled a rat straight way, so I have now dug my heels in. There is a lot more I have to say about all of this. Will all be on the website for you to check out soon.

I'll let you know how it progresses soon. Cheers all.