Technical advice please.

[tamarisk]

I am considering taking Renault Wimbledon to the small claims court for unecessary work done and incompetence.
Took the 1.5 diesel in as it was hesitating when accelerating at all speeds including pulling away from a statnding start. The initial diagnostic they did showed
df089 inlet manifold pressure sensor circuit 1.def
df039 inlet air temperature sensor circuit c0.1
df008 df009 pedal potentiometer circuit track 1 and 2
df025 preheating unit diagnostic connection
When I took it in i spoke to a technician and explained that I believed the car had a missing component, but that I had owned the car for nearly 3 years and it had always performed without problems. As it transpired it was missing a turbo boost sensor and related conduit, which they immediately fitted for 370quid. This diddn't fix the problem so they then did 2 hours of investigative work for another 156quid. They found nothing and suggested that they would need to strip the entire dash a job which takes a minimum of 4 hours, I was told and that there was the poss the car might need a new wiring loom. I removed my car and took it to another garage for a second opinion. They managed to find and fix the problem in an hour and a half and for the cost of 88quid.
Would I be correct in asking why the turbo problem was addressed before the pedal potentiometer one. Especially as I was having the problem at low speeds as well?
Wouldn't the pedal potentiometer issue be the first thing to look at(it was ultimately the problem, a simple wiring short between the accelerator pedal and the ecu)
Thanks in advance for any help.

[davelowe]

I was half way through reading your error list when I guessed a wiring loom/electrical problem.

What you really need is legal advice not technical. Probably, and I know nothing of the law, is that it will come down to what a 'reasonable' technician should have concluded. My opinion is that they should have spotted the problem first; go to your local CAB and get some free advice. I can't defend speculative trial and error diagnostics, not from supposed professionals. If so instructed, go get your money back via the courts.

[AlexB]

tamarisk,

Your money for the "missing" part are gone, as you personally declared the named part missing on the order form. I doubt that you cared to take a photograph of the engine bay before ordering the job...

You can get your money back for the investigation of the codes, if the corresponding paperwork does not include the operations listed in the factory manual (see the sticky thread).

Multiple sensor faults are often caused by the problems with the power or ground circuits, which must be checked first, as prescribed by the manual.

[tamarisk]

Thanks Dave, I have followed correct procedures vis-a-vis contacting Renault Wimbledon with my issues. Had no joy with the Trade assoc they are members of, so went to CAB yesterday. Wasn't overly impressed with advice given as all they did was log on to the internet and print off a few pages of advice about taking Renault Wimbledon to the small claims court. The Trade assoc suggested I go to arbitration but CAB advised against that route but weren't very clear why. The girl I spoke to at the CAB was actually east european and kept on dissapearing to get advice from her supervisor! Anyway, I initially thought about just claiming for the 2 hours of investigative work that got nowhere but suggested alot more expensive work, but when I considered the situation again I wondered why they had dealt with the turbo issue first before addressing the pedal potentiometer one. This is why I'm asking technical advice. Obviously Renault Wimbledon are saying that they have a set procedure to follow and work on a process of elimination, but why didn't they eliminate the most obvious issue first?

[davelowe]

I understand where you are coming from. I haven't studied the manual with regard to the diagnosis of your problem. If the manual states that the throttle potentiometer should be the first port of call when investigating the fault, then I would imagine that the claim lies directly with Renault (UK) and its licensed operatives. In which case, contact Renault Customer Services with your complaint. They may re-reimburse any costs incurred by the Renault garages - but oddly not that of the independent that actually cured it.

Turbo failures are common, so I can see why they went for that - and missing boost solenoids have been mentioned on here before. It could all boil down to which specific engine design you have - the 1.5 has had many incarnations. You might use that fact to your advantage when you call (or better still, write).

[AlexB]

No they dealt with it because of this:
"When I took it in i spoke to a technician and explained that I believed the car had a missing component..."

In any case one needs to look at the evidence first, which is the paperwork, not spoken words. You have the evidence, then go to court, otherwise - bad luck.

The court does not investigate anything, they just make a decision based on the presented evidence.

[tamarisk]

Cheers again both. AlexB what paperwork (evidence) are you talking about? All I have are 2 bills outlining the work done. I was obviously contacted by them prior to the initial work starting and told that they were going to address the turbo issue first. Not being remotely mechanically minded I agreed to that work, because I thought or more correctly, was led to believe that this was causing the problem. When 5 minutes after picking the car up it was evident this hadn't solved the problem I returned the car back to them. I am not privvy to the second diagnostic but can only guess it showed the pedal potentiometer issue as it had done on the initial one. Why was it then suggested that the whole dash assembly be stripped down and the possibility that the wiring loom be replaced? By the way this is all written on my 2nd bill for the 2 hours of investigative work. I think I have a pretty good case regarding the second lot of work, but I wanted to know why the pedal potentiometer wasn't addressed first. It sounds like I'm perhaps simplifying things too much, but I was just asking whether the lack of a turbo boost sensor and related conduit would effect the performance of the engine in the way I presented my car to the garage. I reiterate, that I had owned the car for nearly 3 years, never removed the missing components or had them removed so can only assume the car had never had them whilst in my ownership. I realise modern cars are much more complicated than of old, does that mean that technicians now have to follow set procedures rather than using knowhow and experience. I really don't want to go down the small claims court procedure and waste my time, but surely this debate comes down to technical issues. How could this be judged fairly without some technical knowledge. If it's going to be a case of Renault Wimbledon turning up and saying we have a set procedure which we covered correctly, then I don't have leg to stand on!

[AlexB]

tamarisk,

Please read the manual in the sticky thread regarding the listed fault codes. You will see that the relevant to your original complaints code is df089. It is related to the same four wires and the same connector as df039. The second garage just traced these four wires in the engine bay and fixed the problem. The pedal fault is unrelated and displays itself differently: constant revs at 1300rmp, accelerator unresponsive. This is the "bonus" job the first garage wanted to add to the bill. The last fault only affects starting in very low temperatures and emissions. It is, probably, still there.

The wires in question (from the boost sensor to ECU):
Sensor connector track 1 track C3 computer connector B
Sensor connector track 2 track J2 computer connector B
Sensor connector track 3 track C1 computer connector B
Sensor connector track 4 track C2 computer connector B
These wires are about a metre long.

[tamarisk]

Thanks Alex....But I really don't have a clue what you are trying to tell me.

[davelowe]

Basically, they did an adequate job. You would be ill advised to proceed down the legal route - unless you have a mate with a legal degree and much knowledge of cars.

Some (possibly many) of us have experienced this kind of misfortune in the past.

Let me make time to re-read all the posts in this thread again and consult the manual (that might not necessarily ought to be in the public domain). Alex makes a good point. You might have had more than one problem (caused by 4 wires in close proximity chafing), but only one of the issues was addressed). In effect therefore, you paid one garage to fix one problem and another to fix the other. Whether the first should have spotted both is a moot point, and I guess beyond reasonable doubt.

[tamarisk]

AlexB. ''The second garage just traced these four wires in the engine bay and fixed the problem.'' Why didn't the first garage do the the same? Instead of spending 2 hours looking, not finding anything and then suggesting that the dash be stripped down and the loom replaced. Where exactly were they looking? Is it such a complicated matter that they could feasibly have been looking in completely the wrong place? The second garage had no more information at hand than the first one, as I hadn't been given any information to pass on to them by the first, they simply ran a diagnostic and sorted the problem out. Cheers Dave for help, if it's considered Renault Wimbledon had done an adepuate job I'll be wasting my time. Just galling to know that I could have said yes to their suggestion of all extra work paid an arm and a leg, now knowing that it cost 88quid to sort out. Guess I ultimately had a lucky outcome.

[tomalamix]

you should ask for a refund on the job done that didnt solve the problem, and you should make that until the problem is solved, only paying in the final for the problem it self instead of paying for something that the person in charge thinks it is, if the problem isnt solved the costumer pays, and keeps on paying until the problem is solved. If the dealer is not able to solve the problem pass the problem to the central services and from there they will give hints how to solve the problem whitout empty the costumer wallet. (this doesnt happen in 95% of cases because 1: selling more spares its good for the business; 2: the main dealer doesnt want to assume that is unable to solve a problem and report it to the Renault France...its like going to the doctor with a broken leg and the doctor gives you an aspirin.

[AlexB]

"Where exactly were they looking?" -- This is exactly my point: they were not looking, but rather following the advice of "Dishonest John":

"The Electronics Earner
If the car is not running properly, tell the customer you will perform a complete diagnostics check on it. This will usually isolate the true cause of the problem, but instead of fixing that replace one of the other components in the electronics or the fuel injection system. The customer will then come back and, after pleading 'trial and error', you will probably get the chance to rip him off for replacing something else which may or may not solve the problem."
https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/garage- ... -rip-offs/

AlexB. ''The second garage just traced these four wires in the engine bay and fixed the problem.'' Why didn't the first garage do the the same? Instead of spending 2 hours looking, not finding anything and then suggesting that the dash be stripped down and the loom replaced. Where exactly were they looking? Is it such a complicated matter that they could feasibly have been looking in completely the wrong place? The second garage had no more information at hand than the first one, as I hadn't been given any information to pass on to them by the first, they simply ran a diagnostic and sorted the problem out. Cheers Dave for help, if it's considered Renault Wimbledon had done an adepuate job I'll be wasting my time. Just galling to know that I could have said yes to their suggestion of all extra work paid an arm and a leg, now knowing that it cost 88quid to sort out. Guess I ultimately had a lucky outcome.

[tamarisk]

Just reading all the replies again, thanks all, but honestly I'm no wiser whether to go ahead with this claim or not. AlexB-one minute you seem to be telling me, Renault Wimbledon followed the correct procedure and the next you are telling me they were totally ripping me off, also you said " The pedal fault is unrelated " But when I took the car to the second garage, the diagnostic they did showed only the same pedal potentiometer and glowplug faults because Renault Wimbledon had cleared the first 2 by fitting the new sensor and conduit, so I don't know how you can say the pedal issue was unrelated. Dave-I've looked on the Renault UK website and what I've gleened is that Renault Wimbledon, will not be held responsible for any "disagreements" with customers and affiliated garages, so no-go in that direction. Tomalamix-Again I really don't quite understand what you are saying, obviously when I picked my car up initially and paid the bill, I was informed the car was fixed, I entered into a contract of trust with Renault Wimbledon on the basis that they are the supposed experts, I would have been laughed at literally if I had then returned and demanded my money back and refused payment for the work just carried out by them and declare I wouldn't pay again until repair was done correctly. We are not all car mechanics and assume the people we engage to fix such problems know what they're doing or are at least not complete rip-off merchants, which I feel Renault Wimbledon have proved to be. Of course, no garage will ever admit to have having gone down the wrong route and voluntarily return money already paid. I was hoping there might have been a qualified technician on the forum who could have given me unbiased advice, to as what he might have done in the same situation. Remembering back now to when I dropped my car into Renault Wimbledon for the first time, I was actually surprised, when talking to the technician, whilst under the bonnet pointing out my suspisions of missing components, that he didn't immediately know wht the missing parts were. He telephoned me several hours later finally explaining what was missing and declaring he had no idea how the car had been running normally without those parts. Believe me it had, for nearly 3 years. Dave i don't have a friend who is a solicitor, I was actually thinking about representing myself, but if this is such a convoluted argument I wont get anywhere.

[davelowe]

The main point I would make is that Renault official garages should be covered by Renault customer services when it comes down to payment issues. What I would stress is that if the garage is Renault endorsed - ie not an independent, and that they used labour and parts that were Renault approved, they are likely to enter into negotiations. This will amount to partial payment of the bill and a gesture of good will for further costs - such as servicing and so forth. You might, if you write and argue correctly, get quite a chunk of the money back in one form or another. I would advice you phone first, establish a few basic and incontrovertible facts, then submit invoices and your opinion on paper.

As manufacturers go, Renault can be quite reasonable. The legal route is probably a non-starter so to speak. Try them. You might recover something.

Hard to tell without the full history - though I don't doubt you haven't described your circumstances to the best of your abilities. Be tentative on the phone, and of course, consult the rest of us for further advice. Sorry to not be of further help.