Porsche 911 UK Enthusiasts Online Community Discussion Forum GB

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

PPI missed something major

DavidL

Silverstone
Joined
1 Mar 2008
Messages
132
How do I stand if a recent ((4 months ago, proper, good indie) PPI whilst comprehensive in its report appears (and investigations are ongoing) to have missed something major. Something that would have had an impact on the sale and/or price.
Obviously if it turns out that there is a problem I'll speak to them but thought I'd check the hypertheticals first.
Its not terminal and can be fixed at a cost.
 
What constitutes 'major'?

After 4 months and xxx? miles how likely is it that the fault has happened since the PPI :?:

On the PPI report was any reference made to the part that's now a problem? If not I suspect that the inspector could claim that it wasn't included in the inspection.

I suspect that there is a disclaimer somewhere in the Ts & Cs but if the problem is significant and was missed by the inspector it would probably be worth you speaking to them about it.

Good luck.
 
I won't elaborate just yet but its a potentially a fairly major operating part.
I've only done 1000 or so miles in that time, partly because I haven't liked driving it for (it turns out) this reason. I thought it was me.
I shall await the investigation outcome.
 
sadly, you'll find with 99% of PPIs, that there's a caveat to their findings.... ie no comeback at all.

Check the T&Cs of your agreement - I know mine had a caveat saying that they couldn't be held responsible for any findings after the event or stuff that they couldn't get to.

TBH, whilst there's *some* peace of mind with a PPI, it's more so a device to be used as a bargaining chip in the negotiation phase.

all imho, of course.

Dan
 
In my honest and truthful opinion, I'd say you're wasting your time and your breath on something that the PPI did not reveal. The most comeback you will have is the cost of the PPI. A PPI is no guarantee that the car has no defects. It is a report on the condition of those parts that were accessible and inspected at that moment in time.

Lick your wounds, put it down to experience and put the car right yourself at your expense. If the indy is a good one, maintain a harmonious relationship and accept that no-one is infallible. To err is human after all.

You have driven the car 1000 miles, the PPI was 4 months ago. Save your breath and move on - its all part of the ownership experience - these cars are fickle, they cost money to maintain in tip top condition and they don't follow any set rules such as low mileage less problems/high mileage problems looming.

I had to replace two shock absorbers on the Turbo rear suspension the other week. One had just started weeping - tell tale sign of oil on the floor. A month earlier it flew past its MoT without even any advisories.

Who would have thought you'd face such a replacement at only 26k miles? My Merc E-Class on the other hand has been fine for 101k miles and still on original shocks all-round!
 
I'm sure that you have no come-back on the PPI at all, they all have a 'Get out of jail free' card by simply saying that they're not responsible for anything that goes wrong, even though they tell you they're professional and worth every penny.

Unless you can demonstrate that the PPI-er had misrepresented his skills and qualifications, ie, he said he was a qualified mechanic, certified engineer, Porsche trained, etc etc, and it turns out he wasn't then you may have some basis for legal action, but other than that, Nada.
 
If you don't get anywhere, at least tell us who it is.

I'll be sure to use them when i'm selling.
 
Echoing various other posters, the best you can hope for is your PPI fee back (if you make a good enough case).

But it is different to have not found something (sin of omission), than it is to be state categorically something is sound.

ie if they didn't mention the bore-scoring (say) and then you find it: hard cheese.

If they state: "bore scoring - none" - then you may have a case.

Subject to the above posts re not occurring after PPI (ie you would also have to show evidence the issue was in place and able to be determined more than 4 months ago too).

In any case, there is no legal comeback, this is just appealing to their moral responsibilities and worries you might give them bad PR.
 
Thanks all.
I'll leave it at that for now, I just wanted to canvas opinion as to possible avenues should I feel the situation warrants it.
I'll update when I have a better idea of what's what and discussed the results with relevant parties.
 
You do realise you have no comeback for the One Direction CD jammed in the CD-Changer :dance:
 
GT4 said:
You do realise you have no comeback for the One Direction CD jammed in the CD-Changer :dance:
No worries, even for this. There's a company in the North of England ... that's somewhere beyond Oxford ... doing lifetime warranties on CD changers and, in the even of failure, whole-front replacements - up to the A pillar/front bulkhead. Othewise, the Americans offer an alternative CD changer, but it's not been tested in this country yet.
 
I thought the IHeart1DTech solution couldn't be fitted without dropping the engine? (which always struck me as excessive, but I believe they will also flush out any Cheryl Cole too, which tends to leave a nasty residue on your pipes if not properly protected)
 
When I do Electrical inspections (I'm not a cat during the day) it is accepted by the national inspection council that there are limitations - an inspection is not the same as a warranty.

Therefore my use of the term 'LIM' in boxes intended to carry a 'yes' or 'no' is the thing that protects me. For example 'all connections tight/correctly labelled' could only be answered with a 'yes' if you took everything apart and lifted every floorboard in the building looking for joint boxes, so it gets a 'LIM'. A minimum 25% sample is all I am expected to achieve.

It's the things I have marked as a 'yes' that you could get me on, as I have stated that I have inspected/found them to be correct. But even then I would not be responsible for the rewire of a building due to faults present before my visit (obviously!), but you would get the money back for the test (goods) you paid for but did not receive.

If in this case the defective item item on the car is noted in the report to have been inspected and found to be good, but is not so, then I'd say you get the money back for the service you paid for and did not get. But I very much doubt you can get someone to pay for something that they have not seen that was broken before they did'nt see it.

Best you can do is name and shame, as top inspection places ultimately only have their reputation for people to go on.
:)

There is nothing north of Oxford.
 

Trending content

Forum statistics

Threads
126,794
Messages
1,473,649
Members
52,376
Latest member
Lee337
Back
Top