Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Peugeot > 205
Reply Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-04-2007, 07:50 PM   #1
disk_1
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Legal action - Immobiliser advise

Hi Guys,

Please see below letter for specifics on my problem.

My question is in regards to how an immobiliser could potentially destroy an ECU, airflow meter and ignition module. I am seeking $1450.00 in repairs.

Biased company representative says it is not possible to cause my problems and no wiring even occured to the ECU anyway. See below as to why I dont believe them. No wiring diagram is available (bullshit). They have been extrememly dismissive and have on numerous occasions lied straight to my face in regards to my case specifics.

Could someone explain to me how this damage could have occured?

My mechanic report states that the ECU light on the dash was lit/unlit depending upon the state of the immobiliser. This highlights that the ECU was getting power from a non standard source.

Any advice on whether my claim is reasonable?

CAV as pointed me to small claims. I have removed names etc for legal reasons.

thanks,
tom



FITOUT OF RBI/RI 2 POINT IMMOBILISER TO 1994 PEUGEOT 205 GTI NRE 355

In reference to the letter received from ****** Group National Operations Manager ****** on Tuesday 3rd April 2007. I wish to bring to your attention numerous omissions and inaccuracies.

1. In reference to point two in the letter received from ****** Group National Operations Manager ******.
Being an intermittent problem it made it initially difficult to place the onus on any particular component. It was through extensive investigation by both my mechanic and I, in combination with all other avenues being explored that it was determined that the issue lay with the installed immobiliser. It was at this point (13th October 2006) with the recommendation of my mechanic(see invoice) that I sought the advice from ****** Groups Burwood Service Centre. All mechanical work ceased at this point and every opportunity given to ****** to rectify the issue. See below for further details.
It would have been inappropriate to approach ****** at an earlier point in time with what initially seemed like unrelated mechanical/electrical issues.


2. In reference to point three in the letter received from ****** Group National Operations Manager ******
On the 12th of October 2006 my vehicle was returned to me with from my mechanic with no diagnostic errors. It was recommended I seek further help from the immobiliser installer in regards to the intermittent electrical issues.

On the 13th October 2006 my vehicle was inspected by the ****** Groups Burwood Service Centre. Alterations of an unspecified nature were made and the immobiliser unit was left installed along with other wiring etc. The vehicle was returned at this point.
The vehicle broke down within five minutes of leaving the Burwood Service Centre. The vehicle could not be started (new symptom) and showed numerous electrical issues never previously experienced. These include the car locking its occupants inside the vehicle when the vehicle’s key was removed from the ignition barrel and the doors continuously locking and unlocking themselves. This clearly indicates a problem. These problems having never occurred before and only presenting minutes after leaving your Burwood Service centre cannot be explained by coincidence.

I requested a service technician come out and again inspect my vehicle. It was at this time that the immobiliser was completely removed. All damage had clearly occurred to my vehicles engine management system by this point. The technician left after explaining my vehicles issues could not be explained by the immobiliser. Numerous calls were made to your service centre informing them of my vehicles position. No further help was offered and I was told that the immobiliser unit could not be at responsible. Your claims that I neglected to give ****** Group the opportunity to inspect my vehicle is both incorrect and insulting.

On the 14th of October 2006 my vehicle was towed to Auto Paris after all attempts at resolution with ****** had failed. Diagnostics instantly showed ECU errors and air flow meter errors. These were not present 24 hours before being inspected by ****** Groups Burwood Service Centre.

On the 19th of November 2006 ****** inspected my vehicle and made relevant notes. Points regarding my vehicles newly experienced electrical issues(outlined above) were brought to his attention. He could not explain why minutes after leaving your service centre my vehicle would exhibit such problems.



I have provided an extremely detailed timeline.


3. In reference to point four in the letter received from ****** Group National Operations Manager ******
Your statement that I declined offers or delayed acceptance of them is highly inaccurate. You neglect to state any specifics which can and have previously been refuted. You have previously been supplied with all relevant documentation attesting to this.

Any points of delay were caused by my awaiting of legal advice or information/advice from Consumer Affairs Victoria. These delays were explained to relevant parties.

As stated above:
On the 19th of November 2006 ****** inspected my vehicle and made relevant notes. Points regarding my vehicles newly experienced electrical issues(outlined above) were brought to his attention. He could not explain why minutes after leaving your service centre my vehicle would exhibit such problems. His only stated explanation to me was that a problem was exasperated by service centre staff.

I am disappointed and concerned that on more than one occasion my emails/letters have been replied to littered with gross inaccuracies and misinformation.

At this point I elect to decline your offer of reinstallation of the immobiliser or refund of monies. If ****** group wishes to continue their stance on the case I will seek an alternative route for compensation through the Victorian Small Claims Tribunal.

Please accept this letter as my final letter of demand. I will advise you further of any relevant information and/or case numbers etc.




Best regards,




Thomas James
disk_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Peugeot > 205

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:48 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts