It would have been better if it had been mis-fuelled or that this was admitted, as some, maybe most, insurance companies will payout for the first mis-fuelling mistake. It happens a lot and at a stretch could be called an accident.

There are three stages.

1. Mis-fuel, realise and don't start the car, drain and re-fill. The AA have a specialist vehicle for this.

2. Mis-fuel, start but stop shortly afterwards, drain and change fuel and fuel filters.

3. Mis-fuel, drive until engine stops. Expensive.

Swarf is almost always caused by mis-fuelling. Diesel is an oil, petrol has no lubricant. The swarf comes from the internal breaking up of the fuel pump as there is no lubricant. It contaminates the tank (via return pipes), lines, filters, HP pipes and injectors. Rarely the engine. Almost never the fuel pump. This is a bit of an over-simplification but................................!

Backtrack, remember you might! have misfuelled, contact your Ins Co. and hope for the best.

H

Insure your £600 excess with an annual payment of about £45. That way, you should not be concerned if you do have to use the usual insurance as you will get your £600 back.

Save the SMART (It's an acronym!) insurance for when you scuff an alloy wheel or two.

H

Keep the sarcasm for when you are sat in front of a Judge. See how far you get with that.

H

Yes I am still following the thread. 
 

The only thing I’m willing to add is that trading standards, or whatever they are called now, are utterly and completely useless. 
 

H

I don’t usually post this far because I have long held and definitive views on the Motor Industry. But Bankfodder, they are not stupid. They are also, probably, not narrow minded, they are business men and women. Calling one or many stupid is an unhelpful generalisation.
 

H

I have a bad feeling about his. Inchcape are not known for sharp practice.

Somethings up.

H

Be careful, too many contributors to this post are happy to propose court at the first hint of trouble.

Too many people are jumping to conclusions without evidence.

I will always remember the Jaguar Guy, got his car damaged at a Jaguar Dealer by a faulty pressure washer. egged on by all and sundry to go to court. Lost. Nearly lost his house.

The Tyreweld bit is just an illustration of why you need to be 110% of your facts and try not to make your story, fit the facts.

H

If you can get over the fact that it's a Renault (Yuk) have a look at this.

Well, that's the answer, the're should be.

H

A compressor is not enough on its own. If you were to get a puncture a can, or whatever, of sealant (Tyreweld?) is needed to seal the leak. The compressor just inflates it after the sealant is added. There maybe a better explanation in your instruction book. Your local Garage is guessing. What you need is evidence, especially if it goes anywhere near a Judge.

H

But you wouldn't, during the course of a normal service or repair, remove the tyre(s). Wheels maybe, not tyres. You might check their pressure but you would have to physically remove the tyre and check the inside of the tread for evidence of tyreweld. Something which would not routinly happen.

Even if they found a puncture during the prep they would have repaired it in the traditional way, not with the inefficiency and faff of tyreweld.

Does the car have a traditional physical spare or space saver tyre or does it have an inflation kit.

Maybe 'Tyreweld' is just a generic term and prompt for the  service technician to check for the presence of an inflation kit.

H

On 29/08/2020 at 09:52, GoldenGoose said:

This is the first I have seen it, just checked all my paperwork and I was not provided this at the time of sale or since until the finance company have requested it.

Am I reading that correctly??

It does state what I have said?

 

This is the tyreweld which is bad practise again, would be good to see if someone has knowledge on CAG regarding the use of this because I’m sure its a temporary fix

 

Whoa, holy used cars batman, a job card, or part of it, on CAG. Who would of thought it.

It just say's 'Tyreweld', not that they used it or where, just one word, many assumptions.

H

DSR, extended to 12 Months and 14 Day's...........................................

This should be interesting.

H

On 05/05/2020 at 14:56, dx100uk said:

willy waving ignore

 

dx

 

I know you are trivialising this as, 'Ambulance Chasing Lawyers', because they are perceived to be involved. You mention BMW (other brands as well).

Counterfeit car and truck parts have been implicated, and proven to be the cause, of accidents where fatalities have occurred.

There is some considerable difference between a set of counterfeit brake pads and a fake SD Card.

The trademark infringement though, is the same.

H

There are loads of Mazda Dealers. Find one in a nearby town which you would like to visit (The town not the Dealer).

Book it in and whilst they replace the airbag, go for a relaxing walk, stop for coffee etc. Browse the shops (with a mask).

Never seen anyone call a recall notice 'Offensive' before, you need to calm down.

H

No, that's correct, you haven't.

H

I think we should stop being negative about Resolver.

They do what they do in a certain way and a lot of the time they are successful.

They have helped me resolve a couple of complaints very effectively and without getting massively assertive.

They aim to 'Resolve' issues with Multi-Nationals and get good results.

The CAG way, to threaten Court action very early on in a dispute, is not always the way to success.

H

'I sent a laptop , phone, mouse and pen via myhermes'

WTF

H

Apologies, I was merely trying to inject a bit of humour. There is not much of it about right now.

No offense was intended.

H 

£1 to the charity box of your choice says he wont be back.

H

Sadly, I think the OP has done a runner.....................................

All very odd, we have about 10% of this story...............................................

My first thought would be persons unknown stole the Catalytic Converter which would have resulted in missing parts and bolts. Not Warranty. Should have been covered by insurance.

Second thought would be damage caused by grounding the car, again not Warranty, but an insurance repair.

H 

80mph is definitely, really, an offence. Whether or it is reported or followed up is another matter.

'Not really an offence' would be a great defence though.

H

+1

Probably the best post I've seen on here for ages.

H

What legislation?

H