Update.... No more goodwill. Here was my email to customer services...
SEAT LEON FR
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended)
I am writing with regard to the very disappointing response I have received from SEAT UK related to the known catastrophic engine fault I have suffered. I own a SEAT LEON FR which I purchased on 5th February 2011 for £14,000, (from Knights BMW in Stafford) having waited months for my local dealer Clarks of Kidderminster to locate one in white with the appropriate specification. Given the full SEAT dealer service history that the car came with and the limited mileage of 11,000miles I was delighted with the purchase. The car has a maintained service history with Clarks of Kidderminster and they have been very accommodating over the years but I have needed to return the car to them on several occasions due to on-going issues with a ‘rattling’ sound, which they were neither able to identify the cause or rectify.
I write to you as this vehicle is not fit for purpose due to the following
problem:
The vehicle fails to start due to the defective nature of the timing chain tensioner. The timing chain was able to slip due to the failure of the tensioner causing the chain to be loose during the start-up of the car. This has caused the inlet camshaft to slip two teeth causing a timing change to the engine which has resulted in contact of valves with pistons rendering the engine non-functional. The vehicle has done 33,000miles and holds a full service history with VAT registered companies (including 75% of them being at a SEAT main dealer).
The vehicle was towed to the nearest garage by an AA recovery vehicle as it would not start. Upon investigation the
problem was identified as a defective tensioner. The car was recovered to the Kidderminster SEAT main dealer for investigation who have then issued a bill of £6,240 for a repair. The part in question is a component that should last for the lifetime of the vehicle and therefore is expected to not fail and as such should be covered by SEAT under the sale of goods act.
This fault has been documented on a number of different online forums throughout the VAG related to this specific engine and has been identified via the ELSA electronic documentation as:
TPI 2024485/5 Transaction No.: 2024485/5 Damage of timing chain tensioner Release date: 27-Jun-2011
This is clearly a known fault with the CCZA engine, the fact that the part should be expected to last for the duration of the life of the vehicle, that it is not a serviceable part and that it causes catastrophic damage to the engine is a serious issue and as such is not fit for purpose.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that goods should be as described, of a satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose intended. As the SEAT LEON is not, I would like to reject the goods and request that the item be fixed to a suitable state of repair at the earliest opportunity and provide me with a courtesy vehicle also at the earliest opportunity.
Plus, as a consequence of the defective component I have incurred extra costs for identification of the repair and towing totalling a sum of £279.27 plus the diagnosis from SEAT of £142 and I ask that you reimburse me the additional £421.27 to cover these costs and the cost of my time in making this complaint and being without a vehicle.
My young family have been without a car since this has happened. I have found that SEAT UK have to date been of little empathy which is a complete disappointment to me, given that from research other VAG companies who use the same engine seem to have had much better dealings with their customers with this fault under similar circumstances.
SEAT UK have offered 30% of the parts/labour bill given that there are three SEAT stamps in the book. I would dispute that this is unreasonable given that the car has only done 33k miles and the service is fully up to date. There is only one service which is my legal right to have completed elsewhere due to the long wait to book in at the closest dealership. The law prevents me from being penalised for exercising this right, yet SEAT UK are clearly penalising me for doing so.
The underlying fact remains that the part (which has been redesigned since the production date of the car in light of engine failures) is not of satisfactory quality to fulfil the function/purpose of the car and that it is not a serviceable part making the SEAT service stamps irrelevant to this matter.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended) states that goods should be as described, of a satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose. As the SEAT LEON is not, I would like to reject the goods and request that the item be fixed to a suitable state of repair at the earliest opportunity and provide me with a courtesy vehicle also at the earliest opportunity.
I look forward to a full positive response to my letter within 7 days or I shall have to seek legal advice in order to take the matter further.
