Well I'm sure there are a lot more worthy causes to put your money to rather than onother unlucky car punter. There are millions of them about, but It's a nice thought.
I would be interesred in hearing how you went about getting compensation on the car [bought privately with the
issue you mentioned in your posting.
As for our minor altercation. It's in the past.
Ok m8 and thanks.
What I did... before I bought it, I searched the internet to see what people thought of Renault and their reliability. With some misgivings, I decided to look for a suitable one and found a 33 month old one with just 20k miles; this influenced me into going for it. It had had one previous owner and no problems according to his widow (the poor chap had passed away).
A couple of months later, my toxin light came on and I went to the original dealers who had supplied it and maintained it for the previous owner. I already knew that many owners had problems with
and so I had been searching for chats on the subject, and found Parkers. The original dealer gave me the usual spiel of 'never seen one go on one of these' type. So I told him that my information was that plenty of them had problems and can he confirm if this one had already suffered. He said it didn't appear to have had because my maintenance booked didn't show that it had. Then I asked him to go into the dealers' database for a printout of its history ( by now I was feeling sorry for the guy because he had just been taking hassle from a customer on the phone before he started talking to me).
He got the printout and it showed that the car had indeed been in for a duff
, so I asked him why only one had been replaced when Renault had advised that if one goes they should all be replaced. He said that was for a known batch of bad ones and my car did not fit that bill. I asked him would he kindly discuss this with
and let me know what they say before any work was done. I also asked him to see why the car had never been supplied with a fully-working satnav cd.
I think we arranged a revisit (the car was still driveable for the short distance involved(10 miles approx) and on the day, they called me to say that
had declined to make any offer to replace my dead
. I told them not to do anything to my car as I would collect it and take the matter to
myself. I phoned
and received no satisfaction. When they refused my request I asked them for their criteria and of course I mentioned YOTS as I had to the dealership. They didn't divulge their criteria so I called the dealer to say I was on my way to collect the car. The response was, "But sir, we are working on it right now.
called us and gave us authorisation to do the work at their expense". I was surprised at this so I went in to collect the car. That was it... no bill, no nothing except an apology about
saying I could not have an updated CD for my satnav. I said no worries because I would write to
myself about that. This I did, and was called by a senior
manager who asked me a few questions regarding the activation of TMC (that I pointed out was advertised as being present in the brochure supplied to the previous owner) and he said he would be in touch soon. He called me back and said they were sending me an updated cd via the dealer and they would deliver it to my home if I wished. I said it was more practical for me to collect it and a couple of days later the dealer called me to say it had arrived and would I like them to deliver it. I said I would collect it and thanked them for their assistance. And that was that on that point.
However, having seen that they had replaced two
, I again pressed (emailed) for all to be changed so they could have equal potential rather than risk them overloading each other. The reply was "There is no risk, but if you have a problem, talk to me again." So I said I would... and I did just before Christmas (8 months after the last time). They replaced two more also free of charge, so I think maybe
sometimes need to be convinced that a request is genuine before they allocate funds to an issue.
I still feel that they should have changed all six the first time round and will be discussing further hopefully next week. All told, I think this customer service isn't too bad; I have to accept that if they just opened their arms welcomingly, there would be all sort of requests made.... I know of one for a split tyre-sidewall to a dealer from an irate woman who had hit a kerb then said the tyre was not strong enough. I also know that they gave her one (sadly only a tyre) in exasperation.
I have some faith in my fellow man and think that with a little goodwill and intelligence, a case can be explained to its best advantage. Intelligent officers will consider whether someone is trying to take them for a ride without trouble and respond accordingly.
I try to remain calm and polite and have due consideration for the other person's responsibilities to his employer. But if commonsense indicates that something is not fair, then it probably isn't. Why should these
only last 3000 miles or 8 idle months when other cars don't have this problem?
As far as deserving causes are concerned, I think this family's losses are deserving enough. Yes there are plenty of causes that are(yea even more) deserving, but this is the current one in discussion. Maybe it is the way I have perceived Chris's dejectedness from the first post of this thread; maybe I am completely wrong and Chris has only recently won the jackpot on the lottery (may he do so if he hasn't) so he can afford to lose this money, but this is how I understood the situation.... forgive me, all you kind people if I am wrong.
There have been innumerable complaints about turbos, intercoolers and so many other recurrances that should be looked at in the light of "Are they fit for purpose?" sort of thing. If they aren't, Renault should put their hands up and I believe if things are put to them properly, they are more likely to react positively, as they did for mpbmpbmpb and Jonathan and others as well.