[carlstoke]

I've got mine Friday I'm dreading it Nissan need to make there mind up what they are going to do surely they will be liable if something happens


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dad of three]

DEKRA pass my chassis yesterday not that impress really he inspected it arm with a torch and mobile phone and it took half an hour, I thought there be more to it !!!!

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk

 

[lookskyward1]

I don't understand your logic. If I had a new chassis for say £1,000 I would have a far better truck than anything I could afford to buy for the cash offer amount plus my own payment. If you can afford an NP300 and were thinking of changing anyway, then I can see the wisdom of taking the money, but that's not my position at the moment.

My thinking behind not offering towards a chassis change is with a legal standpoint in mind:
1. Nissan have already set a precedent in fitting new chassis to owners trucks at NO cost, why should you have to pay anything?
2. By entering into negotiations with Nissan you are releasing them of a lot of their legal responsibility.
3. Unless you agree a fixed price towards the change you could be liable for much higher costs than you anticipate.

I totally understand your point of view regarding your truck, I'm just trying to point out that by offering to pay towards a repair you could be opening a can of worms for yourself and any subsequent victims.

 

[PCUK]

I don't see it that way. It goes without saying that any cost would be agreed and final and maybe others would be interested in saving their trucks. Until someone who has received a new chassis can tell us how the decision is made it's a moot point anyway.

 

[Inta]

If you look at the guy who started the Facebook snapped chassis group he was offered a new chassis replacement.

Two things caused issues:
1) They argued over who was liable for the additional cost of various parts that would obviously be needed in the swap over.
Even down to nuts and bolts.
I don't recall what the outcome was on that one, but let's face it there are easily going to be a lot of additional costs if you're swapping a chassis. It's far from just a clean swap.

2) When Nissan finally agreed to whatever the final deal was, they took his truck for a week, began the swap and then called him and said it wasn't going to happen.
In the end he got a pay out even though he wanted the new chassis.

This whole situation is a mess, and the payouts for many have been very good, so maybe taking a payout is a clean way of exiting this mess and then buying another truck from there.

With the payouts many have got you could easily pickup a newer Nav that's had even the engine work done.
Nissan have killed prices on our Navs because of this bad press, why not capitalise on it?

 

[17743]

thats all well and good provided the owner has no outstanding finance on the vehicle, if they do then all bets are off as they dont legally own the vehicle, in this scenario I would be pushing the Finance co as joint vendor/owner to negotiate repair under the warranty as they have assisted in selling you a defective product even up to the point of handing back there vehicle to them and getting back all monies paid, owners will have a particularly strong case if previous MOTs before you owned the vehicle mentioned any corrosion on the vehicle.

your HP agreement is simply renting the vehicle until such a time as you exercise or dont as the case may be the option to buy which is normally your last payment hand it over to them and let them put the pressure on Nissan on your behalf or simply give you back your money as the goods are not fit for purpose for the term of the agreement due to a manufacturing fault.

i have copied in some parts of the Consumer credit act below

A hire purchase business has no control over the quality of the goods supplied, so can't fairly be held responsible if there are problems with the goods.
​

No. The Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 provides certain protections for consumers. It says that a contract for hire purchase will be taken to include terms that (among other things) require:

• the goods to meet their description; and
• the goods to be of satisfactory quality.

So the law makes the hire purchase business liable in these circumstances.

If there are problems, a hire purchase business will do what it can on a goodwill basis to try to sort things out with the supplier. But there is little more it can do - after all, it is a finance business not a goods manufacturer.
​

No. The hire purchase business has legal responsibility (under the hire purchase contract) for the quality of the goods, so it is obliged to put things right for the consumer if there are problems with quality. What "putting things right" means will, of course, depend on the individual facts of the case.

The goods I got on hire purchase belong to me - I can do what I like with them.
​

No. Consumers who obtain goods on hire purchase do not own them, unless they exercise the ownership option at the end of the hire purchase term (which may involve an additional payment over and above the monthly hire purchase instalments).
Hire purchase agreements typically place restrictions on what the consumer can do with the goods during the term of the hire purchase agreement - particularly in relation to altering or modifying them.
If problems arise because of changes the consumer has made to the goods without the agreement of the hire purchase business, then the business is unlikely to have any responsibility to put things right. It may even mean the business is entitled to be compensated by the consumer, if the changes cause damage to the goods.

top of page​

motor finance

Most of the complaints we see about the quality of motor vehicles bought using consumer credit involve either hire purchase or a "point of sale loan" (a type of loan arranged through, and paid directly to, the supplier of the goods - and usually called "fixed-sum loan agreements" in the motor finance trade).
But we also see complaints from consumers who have bought vehicles using credit cards.
Under all these types of consumer credit, the loan, credit card or hire purchase business may be liable to put things right for the consumer if there is a problem with the quality of the vehicle. For hire purchase this is because the satisfactory quality of goods is a term of the hire purchase agreement. For fixed-sum loans, it is because the transaction is covered by section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

[chris vince]

This whole situation is a mess, and the payouts for many have been very good, so maybe taking a payout is a clean way of exiting this mess and then buying another truck from there.

With the payouts many have got you could easily pickup a newer Nav that's had even the engine work done.
Nissan have killed prices on our Navs because of this bad press, why not capitalise on it?

This is going to be controversial and ruffle more than a few feathers, but this is my view on this abysmal situation:-

Would you really dive into another Navara again?
Why would anyone even consider this?
From the factory the YD25DDTi engine (UK version) has been a disaster from the start, the original fault was rectified, BUT another almost as terminal defect built into the D40 version, due to 'cheapening' the engine build costs.
Nissan have alerted their stealerships an emergency bulletin to the D40 chassis problem stating that models affected are 2005 to 2007.
BUT as we all know on here, there are models involved that were built well AFTER these dates, that have been SCRAPPED due to corroded chassis.
What will happen NEXT YEAR when this most dangerous of fiasco's continues?
Will Nissan issue another stealership bulletin stating 2005-2008 models are involved and then the year after 2005-2009, continuing ad infinitum?
So persons scrapping a decrepit Navara and buying a later model hoping to be safe from a corroded chassis, may well be back in exactly the same position a few years down the line?
Probably without any 'buy back' scheme, it has to stop sometime, it's simply costing Nissan and their masters Renault too much!
Why risk this?
Only Nissan know for sure when they stopped buying the CHEAP and NASTY steel they pressed these chassis' from, so only Nissan know for sure exactly what D40's ARE blighted.
It was just the same for us D22 owners with the badly specified, designed and built engines, Nissan knew the facts but never divulged them, so D40 owners do NOT hold your breath expecting Nissan to come clean and end your misery!
They only sure way to avoid this heartbreak in the future, is to AVOID buying another Navara.
Surely it cannot be considered correct or even normal to buy a vehicle, then spend countless thousands £'s putting right a terminal engine defect, and then continuously spraying rust preventer annually to stop a problem that simply should not be there, and indeed is NOT present (to this extent) in any other make!
As these chassis rot from the inside out, it is possibly far too late for many late model trucks anyway, the corrosion and accompanying weakness is already inside the chassis rails, quietly administering the death sentence!
True Nissan trucks possibly drive the nicest and look the business, but this is conditional on the timing chain NOT snapping!
As regards appearance, what use is a good looking truck that although it looks nice on the drive, cannot tow or carry a decent load?
I will NOT be a Nissan customer again, there said it, over to you?

 

[PCUK]

A lot of interesting observations! Although I have no finance outstanding I also don't have the wherewithal to buy an NP300. So the next question is: Has anyone actually had a new chassis that was carried through to the finish?
With regard to Chris's comments, I was originally thinking (dreaming actually) of a Ranger but decided against it on the grounds of the NP300's better fuel economy, now I'm thinking again about a Ranger for it's lack of corrosion problems and suffering the fuel costs.
I'm still hoping for a new chassis though!

 

[Carouser]

A lot of interesting observations! Although I have no finance outstanding I also don't have the wherewithal to buy an NP300. So the next question is: Has anyone actually had a new chassis that was carried through to the finish?
With regard to Chris's comments, I was originally thinking (dreaming actually) of a Ranger but decided against it on the grounds of the NP300's better fuel economy, now I'm thinking again about a Ranger for it's lack of corrosion problems and suffering the fuel costs.
I'm still hoping for a new chassis though!

Gramas had his swapped out:


http://www.nissan-navara.net/23-mem...et/23-members-navara-s-pathfinder-s/30210-gramas-d40-operation-combat-rust.html

 

[PCUK]

Thanks C, can't find the post where he actually got a new one, all I've found is the story of his recon' work.
Anyone else had a new one?
Cheers,
Peter

 

[Carouser]

Thanks C, can't find the post where he actually got a new one, all I've found is the story of his recon' work.
Anyone else had a new one?
Cheers,
Peter

Peter, you want pg 6 of the thread (at the link below) about half way down dated 15 August 2016:


http://www.nissan-navara.net/23-mem.../23-members-navara-s-pathfinder-s/30210-gramas-d40-operation-combat-rust-6.html


Graham embarked on a chassis repair which started the thread and he did an exceptional job but despite this, the chassis was condemned and Nissan replaced.


Drop him a PM and ask of his experience - I'm sure he'd be only to happy to oblige.

Cheers


Scott

 

[lookskyward1]

Thanks C, can't find the post where he actually got a new one, all I've found is the story of his recon' work.
Anyone else had a new one?
Cheers,
Peter

If you read that thread through to page 6 you'll see the new chassis.

 

[PCUK]

Thanks all, now on to another matter - VAT! As I reclaimed the VAT when buying the truck I would expect NCS to pay the VAT to me if (when) they buy it back so I can pay the VAT man. Is that what normally happens?

 

[Carouser]

Thanks all, now on to another matter - VAT! As I reclaimed the VAT when buying the truck I would expect NCS to pay the VAT to me if (when) they buy it back so I can pay the VAT man. Is that what normally happens?

So now you raise an interesting question, Peter - funnily enough one that was posted on the snapped chassis group this morning.


Screenprint attached.


I got the gist that VAT wasn't reflected as it was a gesture of goodwill and a compensation payment - technically you are not selling Nissan the truck and they are not purchasing it.


Something like that anyway. You could always raise it at the time should you be made an offer but from what I'm reading I suspect that Nissan's stance would be they will not pay you anything more to reflect VAT. One owner said they paid nothing back to HMRC.

Although I was a VAT consultant for 10 years, I am not sure of the current rules relating to the VAT treatment of the scrapping or writing-off of an asset (which is different to the disposal of an asset) on which input VAT was paid and reclaimed at the time of purchase.

You could try your luck with this, particularly "Goods destroyed so that they’re not saleable", although the "Damaged goods that you sell on" section might catch you... That said, if it is genuinely being treated as a goodwill gesture then technically speaking it can't be deemed to be consideration for the supply of goods or services as you are not selling it and in theory outside the scope of VAT as a consequence, particularly if they are all being scrapped.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-lost-stolen-damaged-or-destroyed-goods

Raising the issue with HMRC might be the only way to confirm (and perhaps use as leverage with Nissan for 20% more to cover the output VAT due on disposal if necessary?).


Jeez...HMRC could have a field day with this and I believe it is something that Nissan need to be held accountable for and advise owners who are VAT registered and in your position accordingly.



Scott

 

[lookskyward1]

A good question and a very comprehensive answer there Scott. Given that Nissan are not buying the truck back but paying (goodwill) compensation it is highly unlikely HMRC could call in any VAT.

 

[17743]

I guess a lot will depend on how Nissan plays it if they attempt to claim the vat back or class it as a expense against the bottom line then it would be interesting cant see how they can as they have no Vat invoice to claim against though

 

[Carouser]

A good question and a very comprehensive answer there Scott. Given that Nissan are not buying the truck back but paying (goodwill) compensation it is highly unlikely HMRC could call in any VAT.

Thanks, Keith, and agreed.

This really IS a goodwill gesture because as much as we feel let down by Nissan, the chassis is expressly excluded from the twelve-year warranty so anything they are doing to compensate owners that have suffered by way of 'buy-back' is solely at their own discretion and not because they have to - no admission or acceptance of liability or blame of course...ahem...

 

[PCUK]

Ah, I see! As it is a goodwill gesture couldn't we keep the trucks and the money and just keep welding bits on until we've all got new chassis?:serious:

 

[carlstoke]

Well dekra just been and mine is ok no rust or rot I even got under it with a proper hammer because he isn't allowed to hit it hard so mine is ok 56 plate might be because I cleaned it up 2 years ago and chassis painted it and wax oiled it so no money for me off Nissan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[PCUK]

That's good news for you. The hole in my chassis needs looking into!