Nortonpuch

I certainly will, but the problem is no secret, they can look it up for themselves, my issue is two fold, the SUK attitude, which surprisingly, differs when you have a VW I must say. and the incompetence of the DVSA, they still did not answer the question, when the gearbox fails and whist it slows to suitable speed to select get you home mode do the brake lights operate? any engineer worth his salt would surely have asked that of SUK The other embarrassment is that the car outlasted it's factory fitted battery (and bulbs) - so this begs the question, how many other DSG boxes from this period have failed and at what mileage, SUK seem to think that the fault is acceptable wear and tear at 80K. Personally, I doubt many DQ200 boxes from this period have achieved this sort of mileage. Then there is the other option, a civil recovery, with a lower level of proof needed, It would certainly be seen by any reasonable person that a car that was less than 5 years old with FSH should not be expected to fail resulting in such an expensive repair. It would be a case of who blinked first, but would they risk losing a legal case to open the floodgates, something tells me they wouldn't.

Somewhere in an email from the DVSA, I have the two service recalls, one for oil change the other for software update. the timescale between these suggests that the oil change was identified some time before the software update. This would mean that all DQ200 cars up to a build date prior to the announcement to DVSA of the software update would need this software sticker, it does not make a difference if the gearbox had synthetic that was swapped out or supplied from build with mineral - the software update is to over come issues with the mineral oil, not to update cars that had synthetic and subsequently changed to mineral. Think about it, if they knew that they had to use different software in 2012 in mineral fitted car, then there would have been no need to issue a separate service recall for a software update as they would have known in the early days to do it as part of the oil change service recall. Seems like SUK staff still don't get this, how can the poor techs have a chance.

Quite clearly then, they have no idea of what oil is in what gearbox, unless the gearboxes came from different manufacturing plants using different oil, begs the question why one plant would use mineral and another synthetic. Good mind to to buy some mineral fluid and take some of mine out of the box and get it compared.

Sittingbull, Here it is, my car was ordered July '12 and delivered the beginning of Oct '12. A phone call over this email confirmed the email contents in that cars 2013 MY are actually built from May '12 and had mineral oil from that date. She still missed the point that being a 2012 car it needed either one or two stickers, it has none. Whether it is related to the defect or not, it is still missing a sticker. As DVSA has said in their email the 2014 update was for cars that have the mineral installed. When I ordered the car the expected delivery time was 6 months ''as the engine and gearbox has to come from VW as it is not a Skoda group part'' this has disaster written all over it, as I suspect pre-built May 2012 gearboxes could have been in storage and then shipped out to be fitted to post May '12 build cars, as I said before, SUK have no clue what oil is in what gearbox. Any emails from them you get, forward them to another email address as they set auto delete on the emails they send out, as I have found out. So if SUK are just an importer, just who is in charge in the UK, VAG UK? or they just an importer too. The assumption that everyone can read the web or has access to the web to look at the warranty details is also shocking, SUK need a shot across the bows - they are dangerously incompetent. Can they not see that this car failed and they failed to ensure it had a service recall completed, despite having a FSH and was in warranty in 2014, when the second service recall was implemented according to DVSA. I am far from finished with them and SUK. With the emails I have I am more than prepared to prove it in court that my car is missing a service recall, unless the mineral installed by the factory is different to the mineral oil installed under the 2012 service recall - really!! Will be interesting to see what Watchdog do - I may have to clean the car that has been sat outside for 9 months. I am not that daft to think that SUK do not read these forums, if they do, then get a time line together, put my cars build date and the service recall timeline together and when the penny drops, feel free to contact me, you have my details. To suggest to go to resolution, I'm happy to do so, are they with a car that has clearly missed a service recall. SUK assured DVSA that safety recalls were not needed in the UK as they could mange it with a service recall procedure - SUK assurance has failed to do what was promised to DVSA, the fact it has failed should now make the DQ200 gearbox failure in the UK a safety recall. This is the same Skoda, that failed to tell me that the factory would fit the sports suspension when I specified the low profile alloys that I ordered in the showroom, I only found out when I ordered some steel wheels to put some not so low profile tyres on it to save the alloys in the country lanes. Thankfully the parts person checked the build record before selling me the wheels. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 December 2018 11:11 To: Subject: SD1230558X Dear Ms Cutler Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email. Having looked into the matter, I am pleased to advise that your vehicle was not subject to the 34F7 campaign. This would mean that the gearbox already had mineral oil from production and therefore any failure is not related to the campaign action. It must be remembered that the DSG gearbox is subject, like all gearboxes, to wear and tear. If the issues were with the “mechatronic” unit, this definition has “mechanical” and “electrical / electronic” components and the “electronic component in effect control the “mechanical” components to carry out gear change functions (clutches / gear selection etc). This is why there is no sticker. Therefore, there is no error, as Sparshatts are not at fault. With regards to Extended Warranty, customers are no longer actively contacted, as we do not provide Extended Warranties, as we are the importer. Car Care Plan, who are a third party company, used to provide these, but over the past few years this has been taken over by Volkswagen Financial Services. The information regarding this is available on www.skoda.co.ukwebsite. As previously discussed, the vehicle was recovered from the retailer prior to any repair being carried out, some nine months ago. They are no longer offering the gesture towards the repair. I appreciate you may remain dissatisfied with this response. As the dispute cannot be settled, we refer you to The Motor Ombudsman, a CTSI certified Alternative Dispute Resolution provider that we are prepared to engage with through the ADR procedure. Please find their contact details below: The Motor Ombudsman 71 Great Peter Street London SW1P 2BN Advice line: 0345 241 3008 Website: www.themotorombudsman.org This decision has been reviewed by ŠKODA UK’s Executive Office and will not change. Whilst we do welcome your contact, no response is needed to this email and any further correspondence in relation to the above will be filed but may not be responded to. Thank you for contacting ŠKODA UK. Kind regards Kate Laws Senior Customer Resolution Manager ŠKODA UK | Selectapost 34 | Sheffield | S97 3FA Tel: 0333 0037504 [email protected] | www.skoda.co.uk | www.skoda-auto.com

It is about time we did not put up with this crap from SUK, I have an email from Kate Laws at SUK, specifically saying that all DSG DQ200 prior to May 2012 will need the first service recall, mine did not as it was made in Summer 2012. I then asked if that was so then it needed the second service recall, and Kate said not it did not, as it had the mineral oil installed at the factory during build - I smell a rat here, if the software update was known about in 2012 for the mineral oil at the time for the first service recall, then why did it take 2 years to release it as a service recall in 2014, I pointed this out and guess what - it fell on deaf ears with no reason as to why it did not need the second service recall. If the truth be known, SUK haven't a clue of what car has or was built with what oil in it. It was also pointed out to me early on in the contact with SUK that I did not take out the extended warranty. I pointed out that I was sent nothing to offer me any either with price and or details about it like I was for my VW Golf, 'We don't contact customers regarding extended warranty like VW do'' I have the emails stating this, so yet even more shocking customer care from SUK - buy another, not a flipping chance when a customer that buys new, has a car with FDSH and gets treated like this do they honestly think I will buy a Skoda again. As for DVSA, our safety in their hands, what a shambles, they accepted that it was not quite a safety issue as Skoda said they could recover the situation with service recalls, it is quite clear that they can't so now DVSA should make it a safety recall to cover the holes in the process that SUK assured DVSA would work by using service recall method, cars have been missed, and by Skoda's own admission, these cars are unsafe!! The one bit that DVSA & SUK have missed in all this is that despite the gearbox failure being safe in itself, the cars automatic recovery to limp mode is far from safe. Kate Laws and SUK have closed the case their end, so now it has to gone watchdog for their comment.

Yes, and I asked what supporting documentation titles they supplied to DVSA to support their (VAG) decision that they could manage this under a service recall campaign, seems nothing was produced as evidence to DVSA, and they asked no questions. My FOI was initially rejected by them claiming under two clauses that they did not need to release any information, one clause was regarding a fault or condition which affects safety where a person or organisation has, or is facing prosecution, the other clause was that testing or investigation is ongoing which could lead to the prosecution of a person or organisation - they did not even think this through!! I appealed this this and had it reviewed with the argument, that if the above clauses were to be used to prevent the release of information, this then is clearly a safety issue and subject to a safety recall, the FOI department manager agreed and backed down, I then had further information sent to me by the legal team at DVSA with dates and the intentions of VAG, but not document titles or ASIL's numbers of any testing that had taking place or had been presented to DVSA.

Correct, but the mineral that was installed from 2012 did need the 34H5 for models upto sometime in 2014, the 2015 Golf we have does not need either.

From my appeal of the initial decision that they tried to hide behind, they have done no testing themselves and have taken VAG's word on the defect. The issue is not so much the failure but how the system recovers when the failure happens at speed, it selects limp home mode to quickly with the car at to high a speed - you will find that your seat belt will restrain you when this happens, and the engine tries to escape through the bonnet as it tries to shed the revs in 3rd gear, when this happens you have no brake lights applied unless you quickly put your foot on the brake, on the roads around here in Hampshire - too late you will most probably be hit by something as it is known that there are no cameras on the main through routes, M3, M27 and A34. At times on the A34, if it were to fail you can often choose the lorry behind you in the right hand lane or cut to the nearside with a car that has the choice of slowing or really slowing, and choose that lorry - they tend to have a habit of hitting cars in the rear around here. As an ex-trials and independent acceptance engineer myself, DVSA's engineers have not asked any questions on this, just blindly accepted VAG's offerings, not even witnessing or asking for any testing, demonstrations or a simulation. So yes, the car does freewheel for a while, not a problem at 30mph, what about 70mph? what speed does the system automatically drop into 3rd gear? do the brake lights operate independently when this happens? you have told us what your intentions are, can you show us the testing you have done to support this - where is the evidence? I don't think any of these questions were ever asked by DVSA, if they had I think the situation with the DQ200 would be different, a 'not quite a safety recall' would be have been a safety recall. With the information I have from DVSA, that above is not all of it, it seems that SUK are not the brightest either, I will going back to them. I have no service recall stickers in the spare well, nothing on any of the invoices, or the service book to say that they were done. The car was made in Sept 2012 bought from new and serviced by the supplying dealer, therefore it should have mineral in it, which itself was subject to having a corresponding software update that should have been completed, but hasn't. Clearly from the DVSA information I have, a DQ200 equipped car made until the software service recall was issued in 2014 should have at least one sticker, some will have two. The car sits on my drive, owes me nothing and is costing nothing, if they think I will be going quietly, then they are very mistakenly wrong. When they ask about my background and what I do for a living, they may suddenly change their minds and look at it more closely. Do I want the car repaired, yes so I can get it off my drive, but I want everyone's dodgy DQ200 box repaired with VAG taking the hit, they know it's coming, just needs someone to shake the tree hard enough. So fill in the link, and when there is enough reports, there will be reporting trigger level, no doubt Colin's boss will hear about, and then his boss's boss, and then maybe they will be forced into doing something, like taking charge and asking the awkward questions of VAG. With VAG's design and engineering staff it would not be much of a challenge, these are the ones that designed a car with a key fob with a blade key and no hole in the car to put it in!! if the fob battery fails then you have to call out recovery to come out with a spare key fob battery, and driver settings that can only be applied when the engine is at full operating temperature. The VW we have was two years old and on the market for 3 years at the time, and the staff and tech's at the local dealer did not even know this was the case - they tried to convince me the car 'can only operate like that, it can't do both' when I picked it up from a service. Fill in the form, it the DQ200 fails at speed or on bend, it is a risk to safety.

Who is McLeod, where is he? he might come looking for me before I go looking for him. The Fabia sits on the drive, I have beaten DVSA into divulging what they did to agree to VAG's intentions, which was very little, no wonder I had to appeal the DVSA FOI first response. From the appeal, I can confirm that my car has neither of the service recalls completed, and it has been owned by me since new and been serviced by the same crap Skoda dealer that sold it to me. It should at lest have one of them!! but then they and SUk don't seem to be able to figure that one out for a 2012 car. I did enquire with TPS about a new mechatronic unit and they said that the skoda dealer had queried if they held one, it was a surprise as they said that the dealer did not have all the equipment to replace and program the unit once fitted. It would appear that the local VW dealer was going to do it, as SUK admitted not all Skoda dealers can do all the work needed. Much like VAG's ACC radar, not all dealers have the equipment and space to test it. The DVSA has a safety defect report form on it's site, easy to use and take minutes to complete, lets get them filled and in and push the issue with the DVSA, the failure of the box on the road is not the issue they are so engrossed in, it is when the system selects limp home mode at speed that is.

Well some of you may have wondered how the FOI action got on, I appealed the decision not to tell me anything and had them review it. It seems that the DQ200 issue continues and that a 'not quite a safety recall'' was issued in 2014. These engineers have your lives in their hands - they need sacking, See below. Yes, the gearbox does enter freewheel and coast, but when the system with a lit up dash decides it is fault it puts the box straight into limp mode. They can't see that, work it out or even ask the question of VAG 'What happens next, does just roll to a stop? I suggest that we all fill in this link and get Colin Toy to take notice - https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-recalls-and-faults/report-a-serious-safety-defect This is the reply from SUK, they still don't understand fully what happens. Does anyone know what the dealer only recall was for and what VIN it applies to? From: Toy, Colin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 November 2018 14:43 To: ash Subject: RE: FOI Request IA/01925/18 Dear Mr Cutler, I have been passed your latest correspondence with our Public liaisons officer regarding your previous FOI request IA/01925/18. I note the case has been closed and the information requested was responded to previously. To clarify the points raised in your Email 13/11/2018. There are some instances where a safety issue may exist which does not meet the definition of a safety defect as defined by the Codes of Practice. DVSA supports these issues by the use of a “non-coded action”. A non-coded action is defined as “a proactive and proportionate action registered with DVSA, which falls outside the scope of a safety recall”. The action that relates to your previous correspondence is, as mentioned, an NCA (Non Coded Action) these are not published in the same way as a safety recall. The NCA is action short of a safety recall but determined to be clearly in the customer interest to have the remedial action carried out. The action is an initiative which has been proposed by a manufacture for a known defect. The process is very similar to a safety recall but is not mandatory, the manufacture can still apply for DVLA data to contact customers by letter to arrange the work to be undertaken. The NCA/2014/015 (Skoda Ref; 34F7) that your case refers to has been processed and the manufacture is continuing to support this action to resolve an issue with the mechatronics in these gearboxes. If you have not received any correspondence related to this action I would strongly advise you contact the manufacture for further guidance and advise. I have listed their contact details below for your assistance; Customer service: 0333 003 7504 http://www.skoda.co.uk I trust this to be of assistance to you. Kind Regards Colin Toy | Vehicle Defect Investigation & Market Surveillance Engineer Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency | Wilson Way, Redruth, TR15 3RP Phone: 03001239000 Mobile: 07815 876106 http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/ Incorporating the Driving Standards Agency and Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. Find out more about government services at www.gov.uk/vosa

They replied hiding behind some section the FOI act, that when I pointed out no one has or is being prosecuted, there is currently no testing being done by DVSA to which anyone is being or liable to be prosecuted then they are now going to review the request - I can't believe that the DVSA staff mentioned these sections in a reply without even reading them themselves, shocking. Strangely, they say that because the engine is running the driver still has control of direction and brakes, and thus not a safety issue I pointed out the the car decelerates rapidly with no braking lights being lit, the dashboard lights up with numerous warnings which take time to comprehend, An elderly driver may take some to time understand what has just happened. I also pointed out that if not one of their engineers had asked SUK / VAG 'does the brake light operate when the car decelerates in a fault condition' then they have failed to do their job. Another question was asked that if other reputable countries have found this to be a safety issue then why has the DVSA confidently found otherwise. As an engineer, I believe the DQ200 gearbox to be so poor when compared to the other versions of the DSG gearbox it should be either made more reliable or withdrawn from use. When the units get to 80K miles like mine they will drop like flies if they haven't already done so. A DQ200 failure on the A34 south of the M40 does not bare thinking about, best of luck if it does. I don't think that the serial numbers of the ASIL's and any other paperwork titles will be forthcoming.

They don't get off that lightly, with a gesture of goodwill that was pathetic, here is my next step. Something tells me that the DVSA have not made the right decision as they were not presented with the facts. Even in Egypt Skoda rolled over even after 80 complaints. Good afternoon, I am the owner of a Skoda Fabia 105HP DSG that is fitted with a DSG 7 speed DQ200 gearbox which has failed. This car has been owned by me since new Oct 20112, has full service history. In march this year the gearbox control unit failed and suddenly dropped from 7th gear to 3rd gear, with engine warning lights on. Thankfully I had not yet joined the A34 just north of Winchester as had this happened on that stretch or road a vehicle would have hit me in the rear as the deceleration was so sudden. A car on motorway that can change from 7th to 3rd with no operator input is dangerous no matter which way you look at it. I have been pointed to the following article and would like to receive FOI about this decision as I feel that the correct decision has not been made, in other parts of the world, ie Australia, China, France it has been considered a safety issue. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/vw-uk-why-we-dont-need-dsg-recall There are many other sites were this issue has occurred, see below, I would imagine that there are similar VW and Seat issues as well, being VAG group. https://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/315115-service-campaign-dq200-dsg-oil-changeecu-update-fabias-in-uk/ Therefore iaw with the government advice on FOI, which I have read, I request the following information from your department as to why as safety recall was not implemented. 1. DVSA notes on how they come to the decision that the mechatronic unit failure cannot be a safety issue. The uncontrolled deceleration and the fact it is scary when it happens at 70mph would be enough to make it a safety issue. 2. The relevant unique numbers, but not the detail they contain, of the ISO 26262 ASIL’s that Skoda / VAG submitted to your engineers to base their decision on. 3. The results of any testing that DVSA engineers have completed themselves or requested of Skoda / VAG to make the deceiosn they came to. Awaiting your reply.

So today I went into the dealership and said here is grand from me (50% of the cost repair) now you can go to SUK and get them to match the contribution as it is dealership lead according to SUK ''sorry despite what you have been told by SUK, it does not work like that, SUK take the lead in matters of goodwill'' So how does it work SUK? SUK sort your house out, it is so embarrassing that it makes you look totally incompetent, and does not make you look good when I will go to the press with this information and the responses to FOI requests from SUK and DVSA.

A driver can safely control the car to a place of safety - what, when its dropped from 7th to 3rd and you have a lorry stuck in the boot, DVSA wake up and smell the manure. Thankfully I was on the service road leading to the A34 when my failed, a minute later and it would have been a different story.

Looks like they tried to hide it for two years.