Technical purge valve canister

Currently reading:
Technical purge valve canister

katie123456

New member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
5
Points
1
I have a new model Fiat 500 lounge 1.2 (65 plate registration in the UK). I was experiencing a number of engine warning lights on the dash that kept coming and going so took the car into my local Fiat dealer for them to sort it out. My car has been in the garage for 6 weeks now and i'm beginning to get very frustrated. I am told that the problem is with the purge valve canister and that this is a known issue with the car, has anyone else had similar problems? I have looked online but can't find anything. Apparently Fiat are aware of the problem and as such need to provide a modified part from Italy which is why there has been a delay. If anyone else has had the same problem i'd be grateful if you could let me know how you got on.
 
Have a read of this.

AIUI, one way to damage the EVAP components is to overfill the car when fuelling.

Given the formulation of some of the petrol that's on sale today, I don't think it would do these components any good if they were to come into contact with liquid fuel.

The handbook contains a specific warning not to fuel the car beyond the second automatic shutoff at the pump. Continuing to trickle fuel into the tank in order to 'brim it' is specifically prohibited; modern fuel systems need an airspace in order to function correctly.

To those who still insist on brimming the tank, I'd imagine FIAT would be within their rights to refuse to repair this under warranty if the cause were down to overfilling, so perhaps best not to give them an excuse.
 
Last edited:
Have a read of this.

AIUI, one way to damage the EVAP components is to overfill the car when fuelling.

so you've not seen a modern report on the forum either..

I'd assumed it was related to the fuel evap kit..
but why on earth have the supplying dealer not dealt with this in a better way.

seem to have left themselves wide open to a "not-fit-for-purpose" car rejection.
 
seem to have left themselves wide open to a "not-fit-for-purpose" car rejection.



I believe with 'not fit for purpose' type claims you have to give the vendor an opportunity to fix the problem, in the case of of cars the manufacturer has to have the chance to fix it and in this case it seems this is what they are doing.

I'm assuming they have supplied the OP with a car to use in the mean time ?
 
I believe with 'not fit for purpose' type claims you have to give the vendor an opportunity to fix the problem, in the case of of cars the manufacturer has to have the chance to fix it and in this case it seems this is what they are doing.

I'm assuming they have supplied the OP with a car to use in the mean time ?
Hi thanks for the replies! I've got a corsa at the moment which is being provided by Europcar courtesy of Fiat so not ideal. I don't "brim" the fuel tank - as soon as it clicks I always stop putting fuel in. Spoke to Fiat customer service today (after calling them three times!) and they have finally admitted that at the moment they have no fix for the problem so looks like I need to go down the rejection route. Is there anywhere with advice on this? I'm on a PCP deal and have dug out the paperwork to look over this weekend :(
 
Spoke to Fiat customer service today (after calling them three times!) and they have finally admitted that at the moment they have no fix for the problem...

This is close to unbelievable. If what they are saying is true (it's a common issue with no known fix that takes the car off the road), then the forum would be littered with complaints, and it isn't (yours is the first I've seen). If they really can't fix your car, then they should admit it & replace it so that you can move on. You're paying a lot of money each month to have the use of the car you chose, not some cr**py corsa. You deserve better service than this when you enter into a binding pcp agreement.

...so looks like I need to go down the rejection route. Is there anywhere with advice on this? I'm on a PCP deal and have dug out the paperwork to look over this weekend :(

Only the legal owner of the car can reject it. If you've bought the car on a pcp then the equivalent course of action would be to sue the pcp provider for breach of contract.

Either would be a massive step involving a great deal of hassle, and potential legal costs which could be more than the value of the car. You'll almost certainly need legal advice if you do this, and that won't be cheap - solicitors typically charge at least £200 per hour, plus VAT. You can get free advice from your local CAB; it's just possible that they will be able to exert some pressure on the relevant parties to get this sorted out, but don't count on it.

I strongly recommend that you deal with this through amicable negotiation if you can. The most important thing to do now is to make the pcp provider aware of the situation, if you have not already done so. This would in any case be a legal requirement before taking formal action, but the emphasis at this stage should be on getting the pcp provider to put pressure on the supplying dealer to sort this out by whatever means are necessary.

Whatever else, don't stop making the monthly payment to the pcp provider or you'll likely have not just a ruined car, but a ruined credit history as well. Fixing that could prove even harder than fixing the car.
 
Last edited:
The handbook contains a specific warning not to fuel the car beyond the second automatic shutoff at the pump.
Well, that is almost correct. The older handbooks say:
To fill the tank completely, top-up twice after the first click of the fuel delivery gun. Further top-ups could cause faults in the fuel feeding system.
However, I just checked the handbook of brand new 500 and that doesn't contain this message anymore.
 
I believe with 'not fit for purpose' type claims you have to give the vendor an opportunity to fix the problem, in the case of of cars the manufacturer has to have the chance to fix it and in this case it seems this is what they are doing.

I'm assuming they have supplied the OP with a car to use in the mean time ?


Sorry ignore below, law updated see messages below.
No, you don't have to let them try to fix it. Letting them have a go at a repair can actually weaken your case. You just have to prove that the car (or other item) is not fit for purpose. This is not hearsay, I've been there and done it. A few years ago I sued a used car dealer ( Gary Kitely Canfield Cars ) over a Dodge Journey (like a Fremont but VW engine) with a transmission fault. I refused to let them touch the car and won the case in the small claims court.

Robert G8RPI.
 
Last edited:
No, you don't have to let them try to fix it. Letting them have a go at a repair can actually weaken your case. You just have to prove that the car (or other item) is not fit for purpose. This is not hearsay, I've been there and done it. A few years ago I sued a used car dealer ( Gary Kitely Canfield Cars ) over a Dodge Journey (like a Fremont but VW engine) with a transmission fault. I refused to let them touch the car and won the case in the small claims court.

Robert G8RPI.



The consumer rights act has updated the 'not fit for purpose rules' you now have only 30 days to return goods and after this you have to allow them one opportunity to repair/resolve the problem satisfactorily, and its the vendors choice to repair or replace. If it still can't be resolved then you can get a refund.

These are the rules as of the 1st October 2015 so likely to apply in this case
 
The consumer rights act has updated the 'not fit for purpose rules' you now have only 30 days to return goods and after this you have to allow them one opportunity to repair/resolve the problem satisfactorily, and its the vendors choice to repair or replace. If it still can't be resolved then you can get a refund.

These are the rules as of the 1st October 2015 so likely to apply in this case

I stand corrected.
The new laws mean I would not have had anywhere near as much hassle getting my money back.
My case was 2014.

Robert G8RPI.
 
This is close to unbelievable. If what they are saying is true (it's a common issue with no known fix that takes the car off the road), then the forum would be littered with complaints, and it isn't (yours is the first I've seen). If they really can't fix your car, then they should admit it & replace it so that you can move on. You're paying a lot of money each month to have the use of the car you chose, not some cr**py corsa. You deserve better service than this when you enter into a binding pcp agreement.



Only the legal owner of the car can reject it. If you've bought the car on a pcp then the equivalent course of action would be to sue the pcp provider for breach of contract.

Either would be a massive step involving a great deal of hassle, and potential legal costs which could be more than the value of the car. You'll almost certainly need legal advice if you do this, and that won't be cheap - solicitors typically charge at least £200 per hour, plus VAT. You can get free advice from your local CAB; it's just possible that they will be able to exert some pressure on the relevant parties to get this sorted out, but don't count on it.

I strongly recommend that you deal with this through amicable negotiation if you can. The most important thing to do now is to make the pcp provider aware of the situation, if you have not already done so. This would in any case be a legal requirement before taking formal action, but the emphasis at this stage should be on getting the pcp provider to put pressure on the supplying dealer to sort this out by whatever means are necessary.

Whatever else, don't stop making the monthly payment to the pcp provider or you'll likely have not just a ruined car, but a ruined credit history as well. Fixing that could prove even harder than fixing the car.
That is exactly the point I made to them... there is no mention of this problem on the internet and with the Fiat 500 being a relatively common car on the road, if this is a recurring problem then surely other people would be complaining too! The case manager dealing with my complaint at Fiat has told me that the technical team are meeting on Monday and she'll have a further update for me following that but in the meantime I'm contacting the PCP company (which is actually Fiat albeit a different part of the company so I need to speak to them separately!) about my options. As it happens I am a lawyer so I've already briefly looked into my rights. I'm not an expert in this area so I am checking with a colleague whether the 1 October 2015 onwards rules apply to me as I ordered the car in September 2015 but didn't actually get it until mid-October.
 
I'm not an expert in this area so I am checking with a colleague whether the 1 October 2015 onwards rules apply to me as I ordered the car in September 2015 but didn't actually get it until mid-October.

If you bought the car more than six months ago, it's probably irrelevant. In either case, forcing a legal rejection requires proof that the fault was present at the time of original sale; after more than six months, burden of proof transfers from the seller to the buyer.

Since the original sale was more than 18 months ago, if the dealership say they are working to fix the problem under warranty and continue to provide a replacement car in the interim, my opinion is that they are doing enough to successfully defend any claim for rejection at this stage.

My original advice stands; your best and easiest way to sort this out is to negotiate through Fiat's finance company. If you don't get positive feedback from the forthcoming technical meeting, I'd be looking to negotiate a voluntary termination by mutual consent on the best terms you can get.

I'd also be very interested to know exactly what the problem is, since the story you're currently being given isn't supported by what's been posted on this forum (if there really were a common issue with these cars, we'd surely have heard about it before).
 
<SNIP>

Since the original sale was more than 18 months ago, if the dealership say they are working to fix the problem under warranty and continue to provide a replacement car in the interim, my opinion is that they are doing enough to successfully defend any claim for rejection at this stage.

<SNIP>

I don't agree, there is a reasonable expectation that any repair is carried out promptly and without undue inconvenience. This is explict in the new regulations Clearly this not the case here.

Robert G8RPI.
 
in the meantime I'm contacting the PCP company (which is actually Fiat albeit a different part of the company so I need to speak to them separately!) about my options.


Start putting things in writing, send a letter to both the dealer and the finance company stating the problems, course of action so far and your expectations. (I'm sure this will be pretty standard stuff to you as a lawyer)

That way, what ever they come back from their meeting with, you've already started building a paper trail, to save later all the ,'he said this and he said that' arguments.

There should be no such thing as an irreparable car, especially one so new that parts are readily available, so it begs the question of what is really going on here? As already stated this 'common problem' doesn't appear to be common at all on this forum, so what aren't they telling you?
 
I don't agree, there is a reasonable expectation that any repair is carried out promptly and without undue inconvenience. This is explict in the new regulations Clearly this not the case here.

Robert G8RPI.

The actual wording of the CRA 2015 is:

If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer...

...any question as to what is a reasonable time or significant inconvenience is to be determined taking account of—

(a) the nature of the goods, and

(b) the purpose for which the goods were acquired.

It would seem to me that an offer to repair the car as soon as parts become available, and minimising the inconvenience by providing a replacement car in the interim, would constitute a sufficient defence.

But I hope for Katie's sake that you are right and I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
Quick update on this one - still no repair! Fiat have told me they have no timing for a fix and my car has been out of action for 9 weeks now. Taking it to the next level at the moment with the finance company. I am so disappointed in fiat. This is my second fiat 500 and I won't be getting one ever again!
 
That is maddening .
It is very good of you to keep the forum up dated , please continue to do so.
Have you had any response from the finance company?
Good luck.
 
Fiat have finally managed to fix my car so I've had it back for a few days now with no problems. Fingers crossed it stays that way...

The finance company weren't interested - they basically said I could only reject the car in the first 6 months.

Counting down the days now until the end of my pcp deal as I'm still not very happy at all with the way I've been dealt with by Fiat (and the dealer Arnold Clark who managed to run down a nearly full tank of fuel and didn't bother to clean my car before I got it back!)
 
Back
Top