Join Date: May 2006
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Madnoel10 - good summary there.
It is really down to the individual cases to be analysed further - in that sense, analysis done on the vehicle in question - to identify the root-cause...Renault and VOSA have declined to consider any further analysis - as they consider the case closed! Welcome any insight how to 'persuade' the powers to be that further analysis is necessary on the vehicles in question!
Issue seems to be that the organisation that has the powers and (assumed) knowledge-base / experience to perform this function - was VOSA. But we now know they are a toothless supervisor to the manufacturers internal investigation; rather than act on the powers that the seemingly have available (but decline to use).
The situation then lies with the manufacture - but what manufacturer would complete an investigation which signifies a multi-million $$$ fault on their vehicles. Renault obviously prefer to avoid impling such a statement.
But coming back to your point - the only way to really prove the cause is an impartial investigation.
Again, insight welcome how to get the owners, Renault and VOSA to open-up and ensure this is completed...on the basis that Renault are using the "owner didn't close the bonnet properly" statement to hold in all cases where maintenance is not involved, means its the classic their word against ours. We need conclusive prove that the bonnet was closed properly and that maintenance was a sub-aspect and NOT the actual/only root-cause!
Maybe a different perspective to counter the maintenance and bonnet closure statements is required - but can't see an issue way of determining this yet!
Currently in brigatti's garage:
2009 Audi A4 1.4 TFSI