Head gasket failure rav4

[abouttobebankrupt]

Just spoken to the dealer and they are predictably trying to wriggle free of consumer law - he has said that because we have done over the average mileage (apparently 9,000 miles in 6 months according to the odometer although I am perplexed at how this can be true so now concerned that the odometer isn't working??!) that then nullifies the consumer law. I guess i need to seek legal advice. more money. And a hire car. more money. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

31 minutes ago, Mark O said:

Frosty - yes understood, but if the root cause of the failure is a fairly recent occurrence - which seems likely - then surely the dealer simply says just that. That in itself is proof that the fault was not existing at time of sale - or am I missing something?

No. 

At the end of the day the new consumer act has been in place for just over one year,  the introduction was well publicised beforehand, and retailers have had well over a year to prepare for this.

The dealer expressing an opinion that it is a recent fault, isn't proof the fault wasn't there when the vehicle was sold - it is an opinion. 

If the dealer had covered themselves by carrying out a full service before sale and they had documentary evidence of any issues or faults, or some other source of auditable evidence, that would be proof. 

Below is an article from Autotrader published in September 2015 - http://www.autotrader.co.uk/content/news/new-laws-protecting-car-buyers-come-into-force-on-october-1st

 

31 minutes ago, abouttobebankrupt said:

Just spoken to the dealer and they are predictably trying to wriggle free of consumer law - he has said that because we have done over the average mileage (apparently 9,000 miles in 6 months according to the odometer although I am perplexed at how this can be true so now concerned that the odometer isn't working??!) that then nullifies the consumer law. I guess i need to seek legal advice. more money. And a hire car. more money. 

Provided a fault occurs within six months of the sale, doing over average mileage in six months doesn't nullify the act. The dealer can make a 'reasonable reduction' for the amount a car has been used, but they cannot refuse a repair.

[Mark O]

Rather than chase up something that may be very difficult to gain redress from, I would be inclined at this stage to simply deal with what you can - which to be fair is not much at present.

Confirm you have a head gasket failure.and that the loss of coolant is not down to something else. That should be fairly simple to do

Confirm - as much as you can - that the cause of the failure was the stuck thermostat. Replace it even if it wasn't. It won't cost much.

If you have confirmed as such, then replace head gasket, thermostat and coolant. Quite where you do this is up to you, but Mr Toyota does seem to be on the steep side.

Worry about the blame game later - at least you will have a car. 

 

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Seek legal advice before you go any further. CAB or whatever.

It needn't be expensive and any claim can be handled by the small claims court - see https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-rights/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/

If you decide to effect a repair in the meantime, make sure that any cause of the repair, full costs and any subsequent repair work is fully documented by an independent source.

 

[Mark O]

Frosty

The owner had spoken with the dealer about the matter. The dealer is (presumably) thus aware of the situation and thus has some evidence to suggest the fault developed recently rather than when the vehicle was sold. He could - if savvy enough - also discuss with Mr Toyota to gain further understanding of just when the fault manifested itself.  

Playing devil's advocate here for sure, but personally I think pursuing the matter will be difficult and costly. Time and money better spent fixing the car perhaps?  

[Mark O]

In addition to which...if the fault  - and I am assuming head gasket failure -  was present at sale, then it simply is not credible that it would take so long after the sale to manifest itself. Ergo, it happened recently. 

[FROSTYBALLS]

That's your opinion, and stating that the issue occurred recently is conjecture on your behalf. At the end of the day, you don't know.

An extract from Which?:

"If you discover the fault within the first six months from purchase, it is presumed to have been there since the time of purchase - unless the retailer can prove otherwise. During this time it's up to the retailer to prove that the fault wasn't there at the point of purchase - it's not up to you to prove that it was. 

No deduction can be made from a refund in the first six months following an unsuccessful attempt at repair or replacement. The only exception to this rule is motor vehicles where a reasonable reduction may be made for the use you've already had of the vehicle after the first 30 days."

I am advising that the owner seeks proper, legal advice before going any further, and such advice can be obtained easily from sources such as the CAB.

[Heidfirst]

It is worth reading http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/the-second-hand--car-i-bought-has-a-problem-what-are-my-rights

Was the car of satisfactory quality and/or fit for purpose given age/condition/description?

Did you pay for any part (e.g. deposit) on a credit card?

Once you know what the extent of the fault is then you have to weigh up the potential cost of going to court if you have to in order to pursue the claim.

[Mark O]

Frosty

I don't think it is conjecture or opinion. The Toyota people seem to believe it is a head gasket failure, and the failure of the thermostat goes some way to corroborating this. As such, I think it not credible that if either head gasket or thermostat were at fault at the time of the sale, that only now, after several months have gone by, that the owner has realized something is amiss.    

However, I am not a lawyer - thank goodness - and know little of the chances of success from a legal point of view. I do know that lawyers are hideously expensive though.   

[FROSTYBALLS]

The part which is conjecture, is you stating the issue was a recent event, when the Consumer Act assumes that if a fault occurs in the first six months, the fault existed when the item was sold.

If one were to take legal action, this would be a matter for the small claims court, the process of which is designed to be relative!y cheap.

For example, as of January 2016, a claim of £1,000 will cost approx £140 through to the judgement stage.  Should one win the case, one's costs will be paid by the defendant. If one loses the case, the court fees (which are paid upfront) of approx £140 will be the total cost.

If one wins, an additional flat fee of £100 is payable should one need to enforce a judgement by using the Court's bailiffs.

So if one were to claim £1,000, win the case, and need to enforce the judgement, the defendant would be responsible for paying approx £1,240 (the original claim plus court and enforcement costs).

[alan333]

15 hours ago, Mark O said:

If the thermostat is stuck closed, you will not get any heat into the cabin. Coolant simply circulates around the engine and nowhere else.

As far as I'm aware coolant flows through the engine and heater circuits with the thermostat closed.

And IMHO if the thermostat was jammed closed the temp gauge should have been reading high and I'd like to think the OP would have noticed this.

[Mark O]

The part which is conjecture, is you stating the issue was a recent event, when the Consumer Act assumes that if a fault occurs in the first six months, the fault existed when the item was sold

I think it is a recent event - that in itself is not really conjecture, but rather a reasonable conclusion based upon what we know - which granted needs to be confirmed. 

I was not aware of the Consumer Act which assumes that if a fault occurs in the first 6 months the fault existed when the item was sold. To me that is simply plain bonkers. Virtually anything could let go on the car at any moment, or let go due to abuse by the owner in that time - not that the owner here has been guilty of that. However if that is the law, then I agree that the owner may have some redress.  

[Mark O]

22 hours ago, Mark O said:

If the thermostat is stuck closed, you will not get any heat into the cabin. Coolant simply circulates around the engine and nowhere else.

As far as I'm aware coolant flows through the engine and heater circuits with the thermostat closed.

And IMHO if the thermostat was jammed closed the temp gauge should have been reading high and I'd like to think the OP would have noticed this.

 

When the thermostat is closed, all coolant is normally circulated around the engine alone to allow the engine to warm up quickly. It is why, even with the heater full on, you will not feel any heat until the thermostat reaches its setpoint and begins to open, thus allowing coolant to circulate around the heater and the radiator.

The owner may not have noticed any undue rise in temperature, nor would there be any warning lights as the temperature sensor is usually located close to the radiator. If the thermostat was closed, therefore allowing little or no (hot) coolant to the radiator, the sensor would not register any high reading.

 

   

 

[TomdeGuerre]

1 hour ago, Mark O said:

As far as I'm aware coolant flows through the engine and heater circuits with the thermostat closed.

And IMHO if the thermostat was jammed closed the temp gauge should have been reading high and I'd like to think the OP would have noticed this.

 

When the thermostat is closed, all coolant is normally circulated around the engine alone to allow the engine to warm up quickly. It is why, even with the heater full on, you will not feel any heat until the thermostat reaches its setpoint and begins to open, thus allowing coolant to circulate around the heater and the radiator.

The owner may not have noticed any undue rise in temperature, nor would there be any warning lights as the temperature sensor is usually located close to the radiator. If the thermostat was closed, therefore allowing little or no (hot) coolant to the radiator, the sensor would not register any high reading.  

 

So maybe you'd care to describe coolant flow on systems with bypass thermostat vs systems with non-bypass thermostats? 

[yaris03]

On 10/5/2016 at 11:39 AM, abouttobebankrupt said:

We have had our 2010 toyoya rav4 XTR D4D for 6 months and took it to the garage for a recall and they have now found out that our coolant is leaking and think the head gasket has failed. We are looking at a minimum of £1800 but may be way more to fix the problem. Gutted is an understatement. A friend alerted us to the fault with the toyota head gaskets and the agreement that toyota will replace an engine if the car is less than 7 years old and under 103000 miles. We fit both of these criteria but after a lot of reading on here and other sites its looks to me that the problem with the engine got sorted in 2009 which means our engine should have been fine. Is this right? Does anyone have any helpful information, we are terrified of the financial problems this could cause. 

Thanks in advance.

We have the same issue car has 50k on a 2007 reg, coolant blowing over engine bay. toyoyta confirm head gasket issue 6k to replace. complaint lodge wth toyota and financial ombudsman. full engineers report obtained, fight ongoing. have the tsb's if you wish to PM and i'll pass you a copy.. also register with watchdog as this is not a uk issue it affects all 2.2d from 2006 -2009 worldwide across the brand.  

[FROSTYBALLS]

Members know that the head gasket issue isn't only UK, and the issue is quite widely known. See 

Toyota did provide a goodwill arrangement on a case by case basis to cover affected engines for a period up to 7 years/111,846 miles.  

However, no manufacturer will provide unlimited cover for such faults.

If, as you say, you have both a Yaris and a Rav4, please edit your profile to reflect this.

[emin-j]

I appreciate this is an old post but how would a stuck closed thermostat stop the heater from working ? The water would circulate around the engine and heater matrix as normal the problem would be the overheating of the engine as with the thermostat closed the coolant from the radiator would not be able to enter the cooling system also if the cooling fan switch is in the radiator on that model that would not work.

[yaris03]

8 hours ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Members know that the head gasket issue isn't only UK, and the issue is quite widely known. See 

Toyota did provide a goodwill arrangement on a case by case basis to cover affected engines for a period up to 7 years/111,846 miles.  

However, no manufacturer will provide unlimited cover for such faults.

If, as you say, you have both a Yaris and a Rav4, please edit your profile to reflect this.

have updated, to confirm i own  both :O)