Northern Auto Tech - ECU and Blue & Me Repairs

General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

Currently reading:
General Twinair - Rubbish mpg with City Driving

loveshandbags said:
But PJ - would the defendant (Fiat) have to have proof that the plantiff was a member of the FF ? ;)
On that topic I might need a better name than Loveshandbags just in case :)
The TA has been remarked as being 'half an Abarth' (e.g. 5th gear youtube of a TV review) - so there's no way that it's being bought for economy !
Click to expand...

Well certainly a good reason not to use your real name on here!
 
I think it would be a tough case, the salesman made the claim of economy based on government and industry accepted measurement techniques.

It would mean challenging the manufacturer on how they got those figures. There are clear guidelines on MPG claims and calculations, which manufacturers must use. These are also those accepted for road tax calculation, so if you challenge the MPG to challenge the whole road tax calculation system.

I don't see you would have any claim as the salesman quoted figures which show it is more economic using accepted standards.

I think you wouldn't have a chance without taking it much higher.
 
RobinPJ said:
Not at all. Many cases turn on what people said. It's up to a claimant to prove his/her claim, and if there is a dispute over what was said it is the judge's job to decide who is right.

Of course, getting it in writing makes it much easier, but it is not impossible without it.

Also bear in mind that judges will have seen plenty of cases brought against car dealers and will often be pre-disposed towards finding in favour of consumers.
Click to expand...

So how do we define inadmissable evidence or heresay?

Not saying you are wrong but I cant see how a judge or Magistrate can pass lawful judgement on " he said / I said" type stuff.
 
Guys just drive as careful as you can and dont worry about the mpg figure! If you become obsessed with mpg too much you might as well buy a bicycle!
 
poggy said:
I don't see you would have any claim as the salesman quoted figures which show it is more economic using accepted standards.
Click to expand...

Maybe it depends what the salesman actually said.

If the salesman said it would be more economical than the 1.2 and it isn't, quoting official figures doesn't change that fact. It may have been an innocent misrepresentation on the part of the salesman, but it is still a misrepresentation and I'd say you'd have a good case.

On the other hand, if the salesman merely said that the TwinAir's official mpg figures were better than those for the 1.2, he hasn't actually misrepresented anything and then I'm not so sure...
 
poggy said:
I think it would be a tough case, the salesman made the claim of economy based on government and industry accepted measurement techniques.

It would mean challenging the manufacturer on how they got those figures. There are clear guidelines on MPG claims and calculations, which manufacturers must use. These are also those accepted for road tax calculation, so if you challenge the MPG to challenge the whole road tax calculation system.

I don't see you would have any claim as the salesman quoted figures which show it is more economic using accepted standards.

I think you wouldn't have a chance without taking it much higher.
Click to expand...

If the discrepancy was 10-20% then I'd agree with you, but if the car is returning low 20's then that is out of all proportion to what is claimed, and totally different to the industry "norm".

But you are right that it would all depend what the salesman said. Imagine this conversation:

Customer: Hello, I would like to buy an economical fiat 500 please as my current car uses too much fuel. I currently only get 30mpg.
Salesman: Well, may I recommend the Twinair. It is the most economical engine in the range. You will get at least 50% more mpg than your current car.
Customer: Wow! Where go I sign? And should I get winter tyres?

In that situation all the ingredients for a misrep claim are made out.
 
Given that fuel consumption figures are very carefully calculated and represented (there are many UK - and European - laws and regulations governing this), I'd say to be getting figures so far adrift from even being close to the manufacturer figures signifies something is pretty seriously wrong.
 
RobinPJ said:
Not at all. Many cases turn on what people said. It's up to a claimant to prove his/her claim, and if there is a dispute over what was said it is the judge's job to decide who is right.

Of course, getting it in writing makes it much easier, but it is not impossible without it.

Also bear in mind that judges will have seen plenty of cases brought against car dealers and will often be pre-disposed towards finding in favour of consumers.
Click to expand...

Very interesting perspective you've given us there Robin. The point highlighted in bold is essentially the crux of it all (as I recall from my lovely experiences dealing with legal collection cases!).

Whether it will happen in practice is another matter altogether but it's food for thought.
 
Ffoxy said:
So how do we define inadmissable evidence or heresay?

Not saying you are wrong but I cant see how a judge or Magistrate can pass lawful judgement on " he said / I said" type stuff.
Click to expand...

OK - legal lesson no 2!

Magistrates hear criminal cases in Magistrates Courts.

In English law, all evidence is admissable, subject to statutory exceptions (eg under PACE).

And heresay means repeating something that someone has told you that you did not hear/see yourself. S evidence from the customer of what the salesman told him is not hearsay. Neither is evidence of what his mate who came with the costomer for the test drive heard the salesman tell the customer. (But what the customer told his mates that night down the pub about what the salesman said, is heresay.)

Oh, but follwing the above rule, hearsay evidence is admissable anyway - but the judge may give it less "weight".
 
poggy said:
I think it would be a tough case, the salesman made the claim of economy based on government and industry accepted measurement techniques.

It would mean challenging the manufacturer on how they got those figures. There are clear guidelines on MPG claims and calculations, which manufacturers must use. These are also those accepted for road tax calculation, so if you challenge the MPG to challenge the whole road tax calculation system.

I don't see you would have any claim as the salesman quoted figures which show it is more economic using accepted standards.

I think you wouldn't have a chance without taking it much higher.
Click to expand...

The remarketing of the TA says it all - so Fiat have covered themselves for future customers.

If you look at the tightening of the rules on hybrid cars for the London congestion charge last year - the UK Government might end up re-looking at their evaluation criteria of the grs/km. The 95 figure for the TA is a 'loop hole' in the system. It has to be the fastest sub 100 grs/km model (aside from an electric vehicle) and for that it has to have an ability to burn petrol for the performance.
 
I always felt that eco driving was smart driving! Its known not to rev the engine and keep revs as low and comfortable as possible or use the brakes as little as possible and accelerate as smoothly as possible! Even racing car drivers know this and (amazingly enough) they have to worry about fuel economy themselves!!
 
jrkitching said:
If you weren't obsessed with mpg then ecodriving would be VERY boring :D
I did. I use it for short journeys, but only when it's not raining. (I'm not THAT obsessed with mpg!);)
Click to expand...

On a discussion thread that I had with ahmett he said that it was too hilly for him in Greece to use a bicycle. :) - only joking ahmett !

ahmett said:
The bike thing? Athens is much too hilly to have a bike and you would be killed for sure (Athens I think has one of the worst road deaths rate in Europe) !
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bah! I know nothing about law... common sense is much more... well... much more sensible.

But it makes me :D seeing the tiny engine brigade getting low MPG when my current 1.6 conventionally aspirated petrol 5 seat 5 door hatchback always returns 44MPG! So I guess I'm happy... (y)
 
RobinPJ said:
If the discrepancy was 10-20% then I'd agree with you, but if the car is returning low 20's then that is out of all proportion to what is claimed, and totally different to the industry "norm".

But you are right that it would all depend what the salesman said. Imagine this conversation:

Customer: Hello, I would like to buy an economical fiat 500 please as my current car uses too much fuel. I currently only get 30mpg.
Salesman: Well, may I recommend the Twinair. It is the most economical engine in the range. You will get at least 50% more mpg than your current car.
Customer: Wow! Where go I sign? And should I get winter tyres?

In that situation all the ingredients for a misrep claim are made out.
Click to expand...

I would have to disagree, based on the assumption that the customer said that was his average MPG. It is accepted practice that a sales person will provide an answer based on the information provided to him by the customer. In this case it is also accepted practice that a sale person will use official MPG figures to represent expected fuel consumption and in fact they are the only MPG figures he may quote by law. Assuming that the TA does 45mpg combined, his response would be deemed acceptable based on the information provided. The misrepresentation act would not expect a sales person to verify the information given by the customer and contradict it. It is not within the scope of the role of a sale person to do this. It would be the same as a customer going to a garage and asking for a 10' work top and then saying his tape measure was slightly short, the accepted standard for measurement is 10'.

In order to misrepresent something and have a claim on the person, they either have to fraudulantly represent it as something it is not or be negligent. The other form or misrepresentation is wholly innocent and the lapse of time begins from entering the contract.

In this case the sales person based his answers on the information given by the customer and also the accepted practice for quoting MPG. At best he could be accused of wholly innocent misrepresentation and I suspect a judge would say that there is no case to answer as the sales person followed accepted practice when responding to the customer.

I suspect you would have more chance of claiming from Fiat as the figures vary so much from the quoted figure, however again they are working to industry standards. So in terms of the law the figures quoted represent the economy using the industry standard tests.

By the way a fraudulant misreprentation could be heard in a Magistrates court as it is a criminal offence
 
Last edited:
poggy said:
I would have to disagree, based on the assumption that the customer said that was his average MPG. It is accepted practice that a sales person will provide an answer based on the information provided to him by the customer. In this case it is also accepted practice that a sale person will use official MPG figures to represent expected fuel consumption and in fact they are the only MPG figures he may quote by law. Assuming that the TA does 45mpg combined, his response would be deemed acceptable based on the information provided. The misrepresentation act would not expect a sales person to verify the information given by the customer and contradict it. It is not within the scope of the role of a sale person to do this. It would be the same as a customer going to a garage and asking for a 10' work top and then saying his tape measure was slightly short, the accepted standard for measurement is 10'.

In order to misrepresent something and have a claim on the person, they either have to fraudulantly represent it as something it is not or be negligent. The other form or misrepresentation is wholly innocent and the lapse of time begins from entering the contract.

In this case the sales person based his answers on the information given by the customer and also the accepted practice for quoting MPG. At best he could be accused of wholly innocent misrepresentation and I suspect a judge would say that there is no case to answer as the sales person followed accepted practice when responding to the customer.

I suspect you would have more chance of claiming from Fiat as the figures vary so much from the quoted figure, however again they are working to industry standards. So in terms of the law the figures quoted represent the economy using the industry standard tests.

By the way a fraudulant misreprentation could be heard in a Magistrates court as it is a criminal offence
Click to expand...

No, this is wrong.

Edit: To clarify, it is 100% wrong to say that fraudulent misrep is a crime. It is not. It is a tort (civil wrong). Triable in the High Court or county court depending on the amount claimed. Never the magistrates court.

As to the rest of what you say, I strongly disagree. A salesman should not be stupid enough to effectively guarantee a particular mpg, but if he did then if the customer relied on it then his employer will be liable.

Just to point out I am a practicing litigation solicitor qualified for 15 years, and I do know what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback.

While it has provoked an interesting response, I'm not after legal redress, rather I just want to assess whether something is actually wrong with the engine.

I've been told by a Fiat service department that it has to run in for the next 1K miles: so am going to reassess over the next few hundred miles.

Interesting about the knock sensor though... hmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

force999
  • Question
Technical Alternator removal TwinAir
Replies
0
Views
78
force999
force999
GettinBetter
General Twinair Question
Replies
6
Views
565
GettinBetter
GettinBetter
sammy19
  • Question
Technical Twinair 2011 Engine Oil
Replies
7
Views
135
steveras57
S
A
General Fiat 500 twinair
Replies
19
Views
1K
d4zzl3r
D
M
Technical 2011 twinair
Replies
2
Views
836
milko
M
Back
Top