Another thing, I think that Renault can only utilise the "person didn't close the bonnet properly", because that is the only line left with any credibility (but even this you can easily disprove!). I'll explain:
- The owner's manual doesn't mention anything about "maintenance" of the bonnet catches, and there is nothing discussed during the sales handover. So this is not something that Renault can continue with (notice that they didn't say this is their "statement" to Watchdog).
- The (bonnet) closure point is a dissolution (red-herring), as per my last note, as it is actually the performance of the bonnet catches, not whether you closed the bonnet properly.
In the worst case that you didn't close the bonnet properly , there are four options of "state" - which Renault need to disprove (so far they have failed to do so!):
- The main and safety catch is engaged - then BOTH catches have failed (released themselves) mysteriously - this would actually be more worrying as a simply two-catch mechanism is not meant to be designed to both fail! (That's the whole purpose of the safety catch right?) (Issue: Main and safety catch)
- The main catch is engaged but safety not -- the bonnet would be flush, it's just the safety may not been dropped back into it's 'safe' state. Then why and how did the main bonnet release itself. (Issue: Main catch)
- The main catch was NOT engaged, but the safety was. Note that this would mean the bonnet is not flush. There is no way that a safety can be engaged and the bonnet flush. The bonnet would have to be ajar. This would be the potential position if the driver didn't close the bonnet properly.. However, if this were the case, why didn't the safety hold (as 'designed')? (Issue: Safety catch)
- Neither the main or safety catch were engaged. This would mean the bonnet is simply "resting" - so again, the bonnet would ajar, and could move freely (up and down). Again, what Renault is implying as the potential position if the driver didn't close the bonet properly (Issue: none of the catches - as none would be engaged)
Now the only one that holds any ground based on Renault's stance is number 4 - but can you honestly believe 250+ people are this stupid and this is the case is ALL cases???
If this option doesn't hold, then there is a fundamental issue with the bonnet (I know, that's what we have always been implying to be the case!). Therefore, Renault has the liability for this!
notice that they Renault have now re-enforced the message that the dealer's are recommended to check the catches during servicing. All this does is push the liability down to the franchises/dealerships, as Renault UK could then argue they directed the necessary action, and it is the dealerships responsibility to action it. This only relates to maintenance checks done at these dealerships going forward. Prior to this communication, Renault UK is the liable party!!