Any chance of this thread being used to discuss whether modifying a vRS is a good enough reason for Skoda to void the warranty and those who want to debate the comparative merits of the Mini JCW and the Skoda Fabia vRS going onto some other of the dozens of threads and posts!

Oh come on. How obvious could you make that..

READ THE 'KIN CONTRACT!

 

In the event that you were to embark on a legal dispute it would almost certainly end up hinging on how a contract was worded and possibly whether the terms were unreasonable. If the contract says that "modifying" the engine invalidates the contract, attempting to prove that your modifications don't count might be a wee bit "challenging". I suspect that VAG know that some of the "faulty" engines were modified and/or abused - e.g. thrashed when cold.

 

Involving solicitors is quite likely to cost more than a new engine in terms of time, trouble and money.

 

Thank you for those words of wisdom from the Legal Eagle. I wasn't planning on consulting solicitors. If any work is required on my car, I wouldn't trust Simpson's of Preston to do it now anyway. I was rather considering having an independent VW specialist (who I know rather well) do any necessary work & then recover the costs from Simpson's in the local county court.

I am more than capable of conducting the proceedings myself - I may need to call upon the auspices of a forensic vehicle mechanic, but that is something I am prepared to do, if only to prove a point.

 

But then on the other hand I just might decide F*CK IT. Offload it & let some one else have the hassle. Who knows?  One things for certain sure Simpson's wont be getting the business.

Oh come on. How obvious could you make that..

 

Seemingly not obvious enough

Ant FR,

There is no Twincharger Oil Conspiracy, 

just not anything VW / SKODA / AUDI / SEAT admit with the issues and why out of only a few tens of thousands of engines built 

thousands have failed.

They tried lots with the CAVE type, then the CTHE except being honest and open with owners.

http://revotechnik.com/support/technical/14tsi-twincharger-engine-issues

 

Was it you that traded in your Hatch for an Estate and got a bad one and rejected it?

Thats what has happened to hundreds of buyers of used cars, because people got shot of them and Skoda left 

then in the Trade, sometimes totally un-repaired and sold as 'Skoda Approved Used Cars'.

There are less than 3,000 vRS Twinchargers in the UK and Under 6,000 of the VW,Seat and Audis.

So not great numbers, but a high percentage of failures in the first 3 years of productions.

Edited 11 February, 201610 yr by GoneOffskiroottoot

 

 

Wow... Falsifying posts would mean an automatic ban in most forums. Surprised by the tolerance shown by Briskoda Mods and disappointed by the fact that this very tolerance is interpreted as a lack of interest to keep things tidy (fortunately by very few).   

Wow... Falsifying posts would mean an automatic ban in most forums. Surprised by the tolerance shown by Briskoda Mods and disappointed by the fact that this very tolerance is interpreted as a lack of interest to keep things tidy (fortunately by very few).

Yup.

Yet hes still making a joke of it.

Hmm.

My CTHE has used about 1 litre of oil in 9500kms since the jets were done. BUT mine wasn't a major oil user at highway speeds. It has just had it's three year service with 38000kms and is, as it should be, running strong.

Back on topic, the OP asked:

1) Does Skoda's warranty absolutely exclude any modifications to the car at all, & if so is that justified?

The relevant part of the Warranty agreement appears to exclude "Damage resulting from the use of non-original replacement parts . . ."

You might be able to find an "Expert Witness" who will argue that interfering with the inlet and exhaust cannot damage an engine. However, the purpose of these changes is typically to increase the performance of the engine (some people like to make their cars noisier). I doubt that VAG designed their engine software to cater for non-standard changes in the inlet and exhaust system.


2) Can anyone see how an engine with a proven history of oil issues, can be further compromised by the 2 afore mentioned mods?

See above.


3) Assuming that the report comes out in my favour, who then do I sue - Simpsons of Preston (the retailer) or SUK?

Simpsons of Preston are acting as the Agent of Skoda UK; they want someone to pay them; they have a perfect right to refuse your custom if you are not willing to pay them. Your best (although still implausible) start point would be to sue Skoda UK for unreasonable breach of contract.


Frankly I wouldn't hold out much hope for success in any legal action. However, in a world where someone successfully sued a Microwave manufacturer because the instructions for their product failed to advise against its use for drying a freshly washed dog and where Stella Liebeck successfully sued McDonalds for failing to make clear that Hot Coffee is hot you may find that the courts will sanction your decision to ignore the terms of a Warranty Agreement.

Very unlikely an exhaust or intake/filter will increase oil use. Especially on an engine already known for this problem, it would probably have done so anyhow.

The problem is the mods have given VAG an excuse to dodge the claim. Ultimately would be down to the legal system to decide if this was fair or not but for an individual to take on a multi-billion pound company (and its lawyers) is going to be nigh on impossible... And they know this.

It's not the retailers fault. The dealer will make a lot of money from warranty work as it is fully paid for by Skoda UK. So it's not in their interest to turn down work. However, they must cover themselves as if they were to be found out doing big claims which they know are potentially not valid they will find themselves in hot water. Different dealers will vary in their willingness to turn a blind eye.