DigitalAutos

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    24

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DigitalAutos

  2. Posted

    Hi, think you have two issues playing out here, it would help to know exact vehicle type. AFAIK the only thing that can be achieved by connecting into the EZS/ESL wiring it to bypass a corrupted steering lock. If this was bypassed then updating the software may well interfere with the system giving a non start. You would need to disconnect the emulator and try reconfiguring the security as a starting point. It may just have a fault on the steering lock. Ask Mercedes to remove the module, repair wiring, and try reprogram. if they refuse try a good indy. have they got a record of the mileage stored in modules. I'd be surprised if it's different as you'd have to isolate the cluster of the network and this would throw up several faults. If the modules are all reporting same mileage (as a mileage suppressor would do) then there's no evidence on the car of clocking. It may just be the Merc technician claiming this to substantiate the non start. You need to go and see the car, what's connected where and into what circuit. I'd be surprised if this has had a CAN mileage blocker placed in the vehicle AND left there before lease return. Hard to say without seeing it...

  5. Posted

    Hi, the park switch inside the motor will be playing up. If the Bsi doesn't get a repeated signal from it, it shuts the motor down mid cycle it thinks the motors seized /frozen. Sometimes even with the new motor on you still have to clear the codes in the BSi. Had the motors burn out the engine fusebox numerous time on these with people trying to power the motor still connected for testing. 

  6. Posted

    Beggar to differ with most opinions here but I think he's still liable. If he can't PROVE that the initial customer bought the car knowing full history, and this customer disputes that he did. The fact that he's now sold the car on changes nothing. Yes the now NEW owner can't chase him, the seller,  through the courts but he can claim against the original customer who sold him it. The original customer is now free to chase his losses through a 'mis-represented' car of the dealer. It's not the same a s a car getting a fault, it's a misrepresentation at the sale which will void it and if the first customer has suffered a loss he's free to chase it through the courts for many years

    Good luck with this one, be interesting to see how it plays out.

  7. Posted

    Hi, can't offer any legal advice just an observation. Why has this took a year to get to here. After the initial rejection it would have been wiser for you to chase her for a quick vehicle return. At least then the ball would have been back in her court with nothing more than a few weeks driving to put it behind you. Waiting for her to slip up so you can put your head in the sand has just delayed the inevitable. Now it's a years driving to try and strike a deal on and more hassle.

    Think the best course of action with these complaints is to put them to bed early and move on. Some customers aren't worth the stress...

  9. Posted · Edited by DigitalAutos

    10 hours ago, TangoVictor32 said:

    There's clear terms and conditions in insurance docs that state "the company may refuse to pay out in certain circumstances" and they list these.

    https://www.budgetinsurance.com/car-insurance/about-your-policy/car-insurance-the-motor-insurers-bureau-mib/

     

    Please give the above a read look a bit more into it regarding the MIB and their role.

    Like I said the OP must insist on this and tell his insurer that third party need to be dealt with by MIB. 

    Meanwhile he needs Mr Mechanic to pay for his car. And slap him with 6 points and a fine for driving his car uninsured.

    If he pisses about further ie doesn't want to pay and prolongs it then take him to court where he can get a criminal record and then the bailiffs can come knocking on his door.

    We all do wrong sometimes but it really infuriates me when lil gits take the Mickey then disappear hoping the person that they just fobbed off will stay quiet and take it on the chin.

    From the link you gave...

    The Uninsured Driver’s Agreement

    • No car insurance – the MIB will settle insurance claims for third party injury and damage to property.
    • No valid car insurance – if a driver causes third party injury and damage to property while, for example, using their car for business on a private use only policy, the MIB will insist that the driver’s insurance company pays out to the third party. It will then be up to the insurer to recover its costs from their own customer.

    In any case, the best option is not to let people drive round in your cars. At lest if it's yourself in an accident, there's no excessive mess to deal with. Hopefully the OP won't get hit for the bill and the mechanic sorts his car out.

  10. Posted

    2 hours ago, TangoVictor32 said:

    So @Tony A on here has an issue whereby insurance are accusing him of an accident when someone else made clone plates and therefore he's being blamed.

    Is this reasonable?

    I did 7 boring years in Traffic as a bobby and we seized countless cars where one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car.

    The driver was informed of all of the above.

    In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. Who have funding for this sort of thing.

    The examples you gave are reasonable but its not reasonable for someone to give their vehicle in for work and the worker thrashing it on a 200 mile round trip because he believes he wont get pulled as its "live on the MID innit". These incidents wont be covered. Yes the insurance may pay out as they get to hike your premium. Like I said they just want more £££

     

    Is this reasonable? -- No, but that doesn't change anything...

    one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car  --  Yes, but the cars still got an active insurance, the fact that his mates are not insured on it is a matter for the police, or if the insurer is knowingly letting them drive this would void the insurance allowing the insurance company to chase after the money that they will still have had to pay out on  a claim.,

    In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. -- No insurance available to claim off. If the vehicle had any mandatory insurance it will be claimed against regardless of who was driving it.

    The point is your insurance are legally obliged to pay out in all eventualities because they cover the vehicle and whatever events it finds itself in. The fact that they VOID the insurance doesn't protect them from a claim. It only allows them to actively chase either the policyholder or someone else through the courts to recover their losses.

  11. Posted

    10 hours ago, TangoVictor32 said:

    That is utter nonsense.

    Insurance doesnt work like that.

    My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car.

    No insurAnce company will pay out if none of the name parties were driving the vehicle. There is even small print in insurance docs stipulating this. 

    I really dont know who tells you folks they do. Please dont listen to your brokers they will tell you anything as long as they get £££

    We're not in Poland chaps were the vehicle needs insurance and not the driver. Ie if the vehicle is insured anyone can drive it. 

     

    My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car....

    It doesn't, it covers the vehicle as well. Say the vehicle handbrake slips and rolls down the street, say your driving the car and crash and the MOT has ran,  Your vehicle is parked and fuel leaks causing a fire. That's why insurance has to, by law, cover the vehicle. Doesn't matter whose is or isn't in control of it. thatch why ever vehicle needs it own insurance even if an overriding insurance temporary covers it. That's why premiums in hot spot areas are so high, it's the damage your stolen vehicle can cause which falls back on your insurer. Not the cost of the loss of the vehicle.

    It's something to keep in mind if you let someone claim they have their own insurance cover to test drive your car. It's tempting to think let them get on with it, it's their problem if something goes wrong. The reality is if their insurance isn't valid the're driving on yours even though you didn't consent.

  12. Posted

    4 hours ago, dellautos said:

    It is on the MID under my insurance and was at the time of the incident.

    At the time i dropped it off at the garage it had a valid MOT, it's been there for some time as required some extensive work doing.

    Thanks for all your replies thus far.

    I heard back from Gordons, very nice lady Joanna there who has shed some light on things. I've also spoken to TWise again, this time a much more informed person. Here's what i've found out.

    Based on that fact the mechanic did not have permission to drive the car, they will firstly try and see if his personal or company insurance will pay out for the claim. If not then my insurance company will have to deal with it. However, I am not personally liable for any claim amount, that sits with the mechanic should it come to that. My premium will increase and i will lose and NCD, but essentially not liable for the claim value... which is a massive weight off my mind. I can front the extra premium, but paying for medical bills and thirty repair would be a real kick in the teeth.

    Live and learn. I'll post any updates as i get them hopefully as a reference for others who have similar experience.

    Bet your going to enjoy them beers tonight....

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    If no other insurance, lookers or mechanics, want to bother covering the vehicle (why would they..) it falls back to your trade policy. This is the insurance for that vehicle to be on the road and covers any events it finds itself in. Your trade policy have to cover it regardless to what they say or where the blame lies. That's who the 3rd party claimants will chase it from.

    Even if your cars stolen, chased and crashes into another car, damaging police cars etc..To add insult to injury, they all claim from your insurance..

  14. Posted · Edited by DigitalAutos

    Not your problem it's the mechanics and your insurance. You didn't authorise him to drive the vehicle so technically it was TWOC. You would never have give him permissions as your insurance doesn't cover him. The vehicle needs to have insurance cover, either trade or private, to be available to drive on public roads ie. Not SORN'ed. You had this. Your insurance covers your VEHICLE regardless if it's stolen, TWOC'd, drunk driven etc. You need to report the TWOC to police and tell your insurance they cover the liability.

     

    This is why you have insurance, to cover the liability of the vehicle..

    One more thought, assuming this is going to run into 10,000's. If your not asset rich, there's probably not much can come of it financially in the long run. Same goes for the mechanic. One things for sure, it would be some friendship that survived this.

    Good luck.

  15. Posted

    Biggest problem for electric cars is they can only be charged off road. That rules the majority of people in inner cities. Can't honestly think off a workaround for it. Even the idea of assigning people a dedicated charger outside their home, kerb/ lampost based etc is unworkable.Most homes have two or three cars and struggle to park outside now. This Orwellian idea of everyone silently commuting to work and plugging in their car for the return journey is so far fetched to be laughable. Most people can't guarantee themselves a parking space as it is, imagine the panic with people desperate to charge. I don't think any of it has been though through, just activist groups and politicians using it for their own agendas. Even if you could come up with some legislation to secure a right to park outside your house who's going to pay the billions to invest in the mass charging infrastructure needed. 

    Personally, I think in the interim the hybrid will become more universal. These are becoming popular on the company car scheme now. i know two people how have the BMW 5 series and neither of them have ever charged them up. A few of the major manufacturers are heading towards the hydrogen fuel cell, this to me seems to tick all the boxes.

  16. Posted

    Hi, you need to establish why it's not starting, fuel cut-off, no spark, no crank signal etc. Once you know that you can go down the right path. It sounds like 'no fuel' considering it starts perfect second time around, without any spluttering, misfiring etc. Immobiliser would be a probable cause. If nothing stored in BCM I'd be looking for dropped comms on crank between BCM and engine ecu. If engine ecu doesn't receive the right password from bcm it will cut fuel supply. The BCM may be falking out or excessive voltage drop (starter, connectors, earths etc) giving it problems.

    First steps would be to see what the cause of the non start is then figure out why its happening..

  19. Posted

    21 hours ago, Stalker said:

    Well I had a right old head scratcher in our workshop between Christmas and new year. 

    I had given our main mechanic the week off and I only had my 23 year old fitter/ question asker / torch holder in to assist me. 

    We had a customer bring a Ford Kuga back in for a re occurring DPF fault that we had in with us in September and had fitted a new glow plug to the vaporiser and given a regen, I thought we had seen the back of it. 

    It came back in with a blocked DPF (300% full) and a faulty temperature sensor this time. It was on the bones of its arse in regards to diesel too (I had educated the customer in September... but chose not to listen to me). Anyway we couldn’t get the car to do a forced regen as ther was a code that wouldn’t clear in the ECU. 

    Translated it said that the vehicle conditions were incorrect for a DPF regen. 

    It didn’t matter what we did to clear the adaptions we couldn’t get the car to read less than 237% dpf saturation. 

    Anyhow, we ended up using our Bosch KTS to to a pass thru software update from ford over the internet. £21 for the software from Ford and it reset all of the learned values, new temp sensor and a regen... now reading 15%! 

     

    The he good news is we sorted it without a visit to ford where no doubts they would have wanted to fit a whole new car before doing a software update :P

     

    I have never really bought into the software update theories, anyway... our younger tech wants to do software updates on everything now, even for unevenly worm tyres! 

    There should have been another code logged flagging the incorrect conditions ie. coolant fan not controlled etc. have seen a growing number of these where ongoing fault codes are getting mapped out by tweekers. The DPF system always seems to be the target. Possibly when you reinstalled the ecu software it returned to a fully working map..

  20. Posted

    That was my thought too. Once it filters through into the market place that these vehicles need to got to a 'specialist repairer' ie FIAT approved/kitted for all out of warranty work, for its life. The resale value on these will be peanuts. That should make purchase new price drop overly excessive. It's whether all manufacturers follow suit, practically locking the aftermarket repairs to themselves. I suppose in a way this is what Tesla are doing now...

  21. Posted

    My understanding is FIAT group have now locked their diagnostic protocol to approved only tools. They had a spate of high profile vehicle thefts with the cars being laptop hacked across USA. Diagnostics must now be authorized by FIAT and the gateway will not allow connection to the vehicles unless it's approved by FIAT over a secure network. OBD functionality is still there but must be approved bu the manufacturer (£££). I believe you can bypass these modules to gain comms but that would invalidate your warranty but it's all a bit new at the moment as 2018> vehicles. 

  22. Posted

    I'm under the impression that two new keys and controller must be added now, providing your using JLR diagnostic setup. I believe AVDI can get around it but I've not used it and this system is not cheap either. Apparently since 2016 JLR have been updating the software to certain Keyless vehicles before delivery to stop the adaption of new fobs/keys. There's probably other systems out there that can also get round this now but going the JLR route is expensive.

    Taken from another site..

    bulletin which explains this Q491v5

    As of 30th March 2015, and the release of DVD 141 Patch 4 (and later releases), all of the above vehicles have a software update applied to the 'Start Authorisation System' at PDI, which makes their Remote Function Actuator (RFA) 'read only'.
    After this point, should an owner require added key fobs (due to loss etc.), the RFA will require replacement. As previously, the customer will still be liable for the key fob, cutting of the mechanical key blade, and programming of the RFA, but not the cost of the new RFA itself. This bulletin therefore exists to cover the cost of procurement and fitting of a new RFA to make sure that customers are not disadvantaged by this product enhancement.
    Where a customer requires a replacement key, the affected vehicles will need adding to bulletinQ491.
     

     

  23. Posted

    Hi all, been reading the posts a while now and keep meaning to get my intro done. Just throwing in on the JLR post. The recent versions of JLR's software won't allow a key to be added to an already used security module. It has to be replaced new and with the latest firmware installed. They had a security breach on the old setup allowing keys to be programmed in. This forces a new module with stronger firmware to be installed...