|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 12, 2018 16:20:47 GMT
Took the car into the stealer, Yes my Vin is in the range, Yes the failure is within the described area mentioned in the TSB, No the vehicle has not had the repair in the past BUT No they won't do it unless I pay for it. So I've gone back to Toyota stating they have provided known defective goods & they should honour the repair.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 19, 2018 20:12:11 GMT
Little update, dropped the Rav off at the dealer, who on checking confirmed that the car was in the VIN range of the inferior product & that the damage was consistent with what had been reported in the TSB. They then went onto want to talk about costs, at which point I advised I wasn't interested in costs as it should be done FOC due to Toyota providing inferior products. They then explained that the TSB wasn't a safety recall & that as the car was well out of warranty it would have to be chargeable which of course I wasn't happy with. I emailed Toyota back explaining my displeasure, I got a call yesterday from them explaining the same, it wasn't a safety recall, car out of warranty tough we're washing our hands, even when I pointed out that they admit to supplying inferior goods. I then asked for what the cost would be, they said they'd get the dealer to ring me
Got another call from the main dealer today advising that the cost of the swab, the new foam & fitting was £1409, but they had been given permission to offer a time limited offer of £539.
So the question is, are Toyota legally liable for the cost? They have admitted that they allowed cars with inferior products to be sold, that had the cara been returned to them within the warranty the parts would have been replaced free of charge, should the fact the car was not returned matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by flyboyprowler on Sept 26, 2018 12:49:58 GMT
Just had a reply back from Toyota asking for the VIN, I provided them with the Reg but maybe their records are out of date, they want to check if the work had been completed previously, so at least it's not a straight out No!
My local Toyota dealer is asking for the reference for the TSB. He says that they can't find anything referring to the repair. So if you can guide me, then that would be a great help! |
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 26, 2018 13:01:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravasher on Sept 27, 2018 8:28:35 GMT
Good news, provided them the VIN number this morning & just had an email saying they have no record of the repair being previously done & that the local dealer will be in contact to make arrangements. So it's worth a punt before paying out for the repair, i filled in this form www.toyota.co.uk/contact-us/email-us
Mine is in the same area but I was told it’s not covered by the warranty has anyone got a copy of the link for the TSB |
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 27, 2018 8:36:50 GMT
The link is in my previous reply
|
|
|
|
Post by flyboyprowler on Sept 27, 2018 9:03:03 GMT
My dealership came back to me, and as probably expected, they won't do it for free, and the replacement cover is £950 plus VAT! Back to the Gorilla tape!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ravasher on Sept 27, 2018 10:19:03 GMT
My dealership came back to me, and as probably expected, they won't do it for free, and the replacement cover is £950 plus VAT! Back to the Gorilla tape! Our 4.2 leather seat is perfect yet it’s older than the 4.3 and higher mileage and with someone of my weight and size it’s in great condition. The leather on the 4.3 seem a lot softer in comparison to the 4.2. Not sure if it’s across other models as I’ve only ever come across it on4.3 Ravs. Dads avensis had leather seats and they were perfect too 😳 |
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 27, 2018 10:28:00 GMT
Toyota admit they used inferior products in the sides, hence the TSB, the question is are they still liable 10 years later, I suppose the question is would they have been replaced FOC if the cars were in the warranty period.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyboyprowler on Sept 27, 2018 10:30:19 GMT
Toyota admit they used inferior products in the sides, hence the TSB, the question is are they still liable 10 years later, I suppose the question is would they have been replaced FOC if the cars were in the warranty period.
Apparently yes, if within the warranty period, then the replacement would have been done. Condition and mileage make no difference. |
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 27, 2018 10:42:14 GMT
So are they still liable? Unfortunately I doubt it
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoovie on Sept 27, 2018 13:57:54 GMT
I don't know, but I suppose in general terms, WITHOUT the TSB, a dealer may be inclined to say a cut in a seat is not a warranty issue although the vehicle may still be under warranty, but was misuse.
So the TSB is a confirmation of a manufacturing defect and makes sure it gets addressed correctly within that specific period and a customer is not incorrectly charged.
Just one interpretation.
|
|
|
|
Post by phaeton on Sept 27, 2018 14:12:34 GMT
But as they admit to providing faulty/inferior goods should there be a time limit on it? i suppose it would be the 'reasonable man test' is it reasonable for them to be beholding to an item supplied 10 years ago.
|
|
