Sold van with faulty EGR… what would you do!?

[DaveD]

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-107-5865?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=A%20principle%20used%20in%20the,breach%20of%20contract%20or%20duty.

"A principle used in the assessment of damages for breach of contract or tort. Losses may have been foreseeable at the time of contracting or at the time of the breach of duty in the case of tort, but they will only be recoverable if those losses were caused by the breach of contract or duty. The claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the breach caused the loss. It is not sufficient for the breach merely to provide the opportunity or occasion for the claimant to injure themselves. The so-called “but for” test is used as a preliminary filter. If the loss would have happened in any event, then the breach could not be said to have caused the loss."

Good luck to the lawyer who tries to argue in court that you ran that child over because your EGR had been deleted.

 

[DaveD]

I believe it’s the Motor Insurance bureau that pays out (at the bare minimum usually - ask me how I know) when an uninsured driver hits someone else.

My comment isn't about uninsured drivers.

 

[DaveD]

Very naive to think you can delete an EGR in the on board computer and nobody can ever find out.

Err, where did I suggest that?

 

[Lubrown]

Err, where did I suggest that?

I never said you did. If you read all the posts in the thread you’d know what that refers to.

 

[DaveD]

I never said you did. If you read all the posts in the thread you’d know what that refers to.

It was in your reply to me, perhaps aim it at the person you are referring to.

 

[Lubrown]

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-107-5865?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=A%20principle%20used%20in%20the,breach%20of%20contract%20or%20duty.

"A principle used in the assessment of damages for breach of contract or tort. Losses may have been foreseeable at the time of contracting or at the time of the breach of duty in the case of tort, but they will only be recoverable if those losses were caused by the breach of contract or duty. The claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the breach caused the loss. It is not sufficient for the breach merely to provide the opportunity or occasion for the claimant to injure themselves. The so-called “but for” test is used as a preliminary filter. If the loss would have happened in any event, then the breach could not be said to have caused the loss."

Good luck to the lawyer who tries to argue in court that you ran that child over because your EGR had been deleted.

You have looked at a glossary for legal terms and made a huge leap hoping that fits your thought process.
You even mention ‘contract’ in your response - the contract between insurer and driver is based on the driver signing to say they have made the insurer aware of all modifications. If they haven’t, the contract is void.

If your glossary idea was legally binding explain how the guy that threw a mattress in his van and didn’t think to mention to his insurance company that he had modified his van had his van and motorcycle insurance cancelled with no comeback?

 

[jimc91]

This threads getting off track as usual: personally I think I would use the faults as a reason to hand back and look for another that ticks more boxes

 

[JOG]

Insurers are covered by legislation too, that's why when the drunk bloke with 4 bald tyres on a wet road kills an innocent person, the insurance on his policy HAS to pay out to third parties. (They may seek to reclaim that from the drunk driver later)
Contrary to some of the nonsense in this thread, there is no such concept of "invalidated insurance."
And I have no axe to grind, my EGR/DPF is exactly how it left the factory, just a bit more gunked up I guess!
Edit; somewhere between 18% and 29% of cars fail the MOT, does anybody think that the day before the test these people (it's millions!) were effectively driving whilst not insured? If so, why weren't they prosecuted for it?

I understand the point you make @DaveD which is different to the point I was making. The insurance company is providing cover again a profiled risk (eg that which is declared.) That’s why they ask about modifications. They also factor in a risk posture (cars not maintained, people get pissed etc) in the wider equation. Then they go spread betting and insuring themselves against their risk profile.

The bigger the payout the more they will spend investigating. They can’t abdicate their responsibilities but they will sure as hell try body-swerving them.

The tongue in cheek point I was making was that knowingly not declaring a modification is sailing close to not having insurance and could save a few bob! ANPR might not pick it up but would you want to test the thesis?!!

 

[JOG]

Coded out, not deleted, looking in the engine bay nobody would know.

I agree but let me assure you that once the EMS is put on a forensic bench, you’d be gobsmacked at the info it gives up. All those sensors are writing data…..!

 

[Paynewright]

I would be looking to get a refund and go find another van.

I do understand that if the vehicle were something unusual / special then you might want to persevere. Sounds like its a well used panel van!

 

[Sasquatch]

Coded out, not deleted, looking in the engine bay nobody would know.

Modern VW ECUs have a 'clock' that cant be altered and which records every time new software is blown onto it. If that software doesn't have a valid VW serial number then it sticks out like a blind man with a torch in an empty car park at night. So while folk cant tell by simply "looking" it isn't at all difficult to establish if the software has been fiddled with, and other manufacturers (BMW, Volvo, etc) are following suit.

6.1's enjoy this feature, not sure about 6's.

There was an amusing (not for the owner, but for us readers) thread on PissedOnHeads not long back about a lad who'd had his Golf R remapped for track days. Sure enough it blew up, and despite then having it blown back to the original software the clock in the ECU gave the game away and he was told to foxtrot off any pay for it himself.

If an insurer or DVSA want to check its not at all difficult, and insurers do now if theres and doubt.

 

[mmi]

6.1's enjoy this feature, not sure about 6's.

Yes, they both do.

Thread 'Buying A Used T6 - Need To Ask For Warranty Keys?'

7 May 2019

Warranty Keys Facts - TD1, etc

Hi there..... So, almost everyone who knows what chip tuning is has probably heard about the "TD1 code" that Audi and Volkswagen uses when they "flag" a vehicle that was found to be tuned. But, did you know there are more of these codes (Keys) that could be forever attached to your vehicle...

forums.ross-tech.com

• mmi
• remap tuning warranty
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Vehicle Faults, Warranty Repairs Issues & Problems

• 

 

[JOG]

Digitpol are one commercial outfit who do this work

 

[Paynewright]

Modern VW ECUs have a 'clock' that cant be altered and which records every time new software is blown onto it. If that software doesn't have a valid VW serial number then it sticks out like a blind man with a torch in an empty car park at night. So while folk cant tell by simply "looking" it isn't at all difficult to establish if the software has been fiddled with, and other manufacturers (BMW, Volvo, etc) are following suit.

6.1's enjoy this feature, not sure about 6's.

There was an amusing (not for the owner, but for us readers) thread on PissedOnHeads not long back about a lad who'd had his Golf R remapped for track days. Sure enough it blew up, and despite then having it blown back to the original software the clock in the ECU gave the game away and he was told to foxtrot off any pay for it himself.

If an insurer or DVSA want to check its not at all difficult, and insurers do now if theres and doubt.

I was chatting to the MOT guy I always use for our fleet and he said DVSA are developing tests to see if the emissions software has been altered.

Last time the T6 was MOT’d he had to plug a dongle into the ODBII port to ‘prove’ it had been on the test rig. Who knows what else that part of the test will identify in future?

Anyway, back on topic - take it back!

 

[monkeybusiness]

I was chatting to the MOT guy I always use for our fleet and he said DVSA are developing tests to see if the emissions software has been altered.

Last time the T6 was MOT’d he had to plug a dongle into the ODBII port to ‘prove’ it had been on the test rig. Who knows what else that part of the test will identify in future?

Anyway, back on topic - take it back!

Correct. My ODBI tracker was removed so diagnostics could be carried out.

 

[Lubrown]

Correct. My ODBI tracker was removed so diagnostics could be carried out.

The DVSA are also looking to roll out photographic evidence to show a vehicle has actually been tested and hasn’t had just a ‘ghost’ MOT. They seem to be slowly testing their systems and getting more test stations on board. I can see It won’t stop at just general shots but start building from there to more specific shots.

They also had a big crackdown on dodgy test centres and struck quite a few testers off recently.

Good to see - driving standards are dropping and so is vehicle roadworthy mess from what I see.

Mix those two with ever increasing uninsured drivers - either by choice or by modification to their vehicles, and the roads are like bandit country. It all needs more policing/oversight.

 

[whodat]

I didn't realise how easily I could be swayed by each of these off-topic posts.
So, I'll add to the off-topic posts in this thread. Why not, eh?
Between the posts I'd thoroughly agree with each side of the argument about modifying vehicles/insurance/law etc.

Anyway - somewhere in the VW manual (more than once) it does say that modifying the emissions system and then driving it on a public highway would mean the driver would be driving a modified vehicle that wasn't tested for use on the public highway and so, would be breaking the law. (regardless of which side you are on - this is fact)
As this is the case, which rightfully or wrongfully it is, I am pretty sure that your insurance and MOT would be invalidated. If you were caught whether in an MOT (sometime in the near to mid future) or a random vehicle check (unlikely) or in the case of an unrelated accident (again, probably quite unlikely unless it was really serious) that the insurers would like to wheedle out of, then you would have problems in the future obtaining insurance. If that is the case - bear in mind that means ALL insurances, not just motor insurance.
The insurers do have a kitty where uninsured drivers' accidents are paid out and that is where any payout would come from rather than the driver's insurance.

Pretty sure that is the way it would roll. BUT it is all based on not breaking - the 11th commandment.
Just did a search for the 11th Commandment but it seems AI has taken over and lots of ramblings about Reagan. Just to make it clear - Thou shalt not get caught.

I am tempted to think pretty much the same about any modifications to the software/engine output and possibly to wheel sizes not on that little plate by the driver's door also - but you'd have to seek further advice about that mlud.

I can fully sympathise with wanting to take out some of the more problematic areas on these vans though but am now thinking that I am more willing to take the consequences financially fixing the damned things when they go wrong, than the possible problems of prevention.

Oh yes, to the OP - if you can, get a refund. Not that they are likely to make it easy for you.

 

[Bigsidavies]

There's a lot of people who are 'very sure' of a lot of things on this thread. I think we should just put the egr thing to bed. It's benefiting no one.

 

[Kind of Blue]

There's a lot of people who are 'very sure' of a lot of things on this thread. I think we should just put the egr thing to bed. It's benefiting no one.

I do not agree with that statement that the conversion benefits no one. It would never have stated if someone who had already had his own problems with a failed delete and tune, who then was encouraging another to illegally do similarly. Not a week passes now without someone mentioning, boasting or asking advice concerning the disablement or deletion of anti pollution equipment. Some even appear to advertise where it can be done, lovely. Only the other day someone was claiming they did not even care it was illegal or not probably could find the post easily enough. Would it be acceptable to be discussing or encouraging people to commit other types of crimes? People are not only committing these offences but they also have consequences for others be it passive people within the community, having even stricter regulations thrust upon us or for people further down the line who innocently end up purchasing these vehicles and then end up with expensive problems and unhappiness in sorting their vehicles out. Quite sure those running illegal vehicles might be feeling a little uncomfortable. Perhaps the topic might tail off naturally if it the practice was not defended quite so vigerously. Has it been considered that their just might be many people who abhor the practice and would prefer it not to be committed, encouraged or in any way advertised.

 

[CAB]

I didn't do a good job of making this clear - but the van was bought from a used van place (which I helpfully called a dealership) and not a VW dealership.

It was offered with a six month warranty - but looking at the fine print there is no cover for DPF, EGR, AdBlue...

I believe that the offer of a DPF regen to "fix" the issue is a guise to get me to have demonstrated 'acceptance' of the van.

The warranty exclusion is irrelevant.

This was a pre-existing fault. They are liable for fixing it.