LS 400 Failed catalytic converters

[pandymo]

Hi all,

Wanted to share my recent experience with Lexus with you to get your thoughts.

I own a LS400 (1997) and around 2 years ago thought I would treat her to a new exhaust system (general wear and tear, rust etc although it lasted 18 years so I'm not grumbling!).

Saw plenty of parts out there but chose to use a Lexus main dealer to purchase the entire system for £2k+ to save myself a headache for the potential of purchasing inferior quality parts. When I picked the parts up, I did notice that for example the catalytic converters didn't seem as well made as the originals (thinner metal and welds didn't seem great) but thought nothing of it as I was using the main dealer.

Anyway fast forward 2 years and my car failed its MOT on emissions. I took it to a highly rated diagnostic specialist and they have pinpointed the fault to the cats. I spoke to the main dealer and they informed me that there was nothing they could do as the parts have 1 year warranty which had now expired. I informed them that whilst I appreciate this, I would expect the cats to last more than 2 years as the originals lasted 18 years. They were adamant they couldn't help me so I got the case escalated to Lexus UK Customer Relations. After some back and forth, they have come back to me today and informed me that their final decision is that they can't help me. 

I'm naturally really annoyed after paying a lot of money for genuine Lexus parts, I didn't think I would have this problem. The only option I have is to now contact the ombudsman which I will do but I'm not holding my breath

Any thoughts on what my next steps should be - am I expecting too much here from Lexus UK?

thanks in advance

 

 

[Malc]

Its of no use to you to know this BUT mine at 209k miles and 23 years exhaust is still performing well albeit subject to two minor welds over the last 7 years costing about £40 a time.

You was sadly a tad premature in replacing the system ..................

NOW .................  I would suggest you visit an exhaust specialist, there's a few mentioned in these threads, hope there's a good one locally, who can advise you on exactly what you might need to do to overcome any problem your system might have.......  it might not be quite as drastic as your highly rated diagnostic specialist might have you believe !

AND get a good indy mechanic to temporarily, if he can, adjust whatever to get the emissions in better shape for the MOT .  he might have a temporary simple slight adjustment to do

I can't imagine for one moment that Lexus or any ombudsman is going to be able to help or comfort  you with recompense for a replacement part that's now 2 years old.

Good luck with whatever the solution turns out to be .............  it can't be £2k for sure.

Malc

[royoftherovers]

Inform the Lexus Main Dealer who supplied and fitted the entire new exhaust system for £2000 that the product was not fit for purpose and that you require him to make good the system so that it performs satisfactorily for a minimum of 5 years. If he fails to do so, you will have a new stainless steel system fitted and sue him in the small claims court for the cost of the replacement system plus a sum for the trouble you will have been caused by his negligence in failing to provide something that was significantly inferior to that which £2000 should have bought.

Inform him (the Dealer Principal) in writing and send the letter by recorded delivery and keep copies of all correspondence. Send a copy to Lexus UK for information only at this stage.

Let us all know how you get on.

[Malc]

John, just a friendly word in your ear ..................advising pandymo to sue in the Small Claims Court might render you personally liable for his costs etc if his claim should fail or indeed if any monies he recovers from Lexus fall short of what he is seeking .............  there is a certain cost to taking out such a Claim !

I'm in the middle of one now and the claimant is going to lose his £185 ? fixed and paid for court costs and doubtless  wishes he hadn't started this business.

Malc

[steve2006]

What are the emission figures for the test i.e. CO levels etc?

If they are just above requirements maybe an oil flush and change plus a good run before presentation would get them down to legal levels.

Is the servicing up to date?

Mine is 24 years old and tested emissions barely register on the equipment. It has been suggested that even with the cats removed these engines, if serviced correctly, would still pass emissions.

The other thing I fail to understand is why you replaced a completely stainless steel system (bar the Y section) designed to last the life of the vehicle and the cats.

[black400]

Two bottles of Cataclean , you just never know , worked wonders for me over the years

[royoftherovers]

13 hours ago, Malc said:

John, just a friendly word in your ear ..................advising pandymo to sue in the Small Claims Court might render you personally liable for his costs etc if his claim should fail or indeed if any monies he recovers from Lexus fall short of what he is seeking .............  there is a certain cost to taking out such a Claim !

I'm in the middle of one now and the claimant is going to lose his £185 ? fixed and paid for court costs and doubtless  wishes he hadn't started this business.

Malc

Thanks Malc, much appreciated.. I received your comment in the spirit with which it was sent.

The OP asked for our thoughts and I gave him mine. For the avoidance of doubt and misunderstanding in what on the face of it is an extremely sad situation, whereby a considerable sum of money has been spent in good faith on what turns out to be a less than satisfactory product and the provider has washed his hands of the problem, I would have no hesitation myself in pursuing the matter via the small claims track of the County Court.

The OP having exhausted the option of asking the provider to make good, should in my view seek the only remedy which appears to be available to him. He would be would be well advised to seek assistance from Trading Standards, CAB or a local Solicitor. 

[pandymo]

Thanks for all the responses and good luck messages

Update:

@Malc the exhaust was heavily blowing round the cats and was advised this was non-repairable due to the amount of metal that had rusted away. the rest of the exhaust had really thin metal due to corrosion as well in some places hence why i went for the new system.

@steve2006 the CO2 emission level was .64% on fast idle (max 0.3% for pass). servicing is fully up-to-date with all invoices.

@black400 thanks for your suggestion of catclean - got 2 bottles and took it for a run, sadly no luck and it still failed the emissions - i think i know why now, hard to clean cats when you have no cats fitted!!! 😒

lamda sensors were also bringing up a fault code, changed those (£400!!), still failed the mot.

sourced 2 new cats for £75 each (non genuine Lexus but come with a 2 year warranty - longer than 1 year Lexus warranty 🙂) but they did the job and car has passed MOT. Upon inspection of the lexus supplied cats, the mechanic stated they were missing the honeycomb centres. Further investigation by myself confirmed that the catalytic convertor parts originally supplied to me from Lexuswere in fact incorrect, this is shown on the original invoice.  The part numbers supplied were 17550, when in fact the correct part numbers for the exhaust configuration with catalytic convertors should be 17400.  So Lexus have ordered the incorrect exhaust system when I provided them with my vehicle registration. In fact the "cats" are showing up as "sub-mufflers" on the original invoice and they didn't even notice this when I raised the original complaint last month! 

@royoftherovers i've taken your advice and formally written to the dealer principal today (cc Lexus UK) explaining the above and requested a refund for all the fees incurred as a result of this issue (just over £1k). If I don't get the fees refunded I'll definitely be taking this further. I was thinking ombudsman and then small claims in that order. what a palaver! Will keep you all posted.

thanks again.

[dendonc]

On 7/23/2018 at 4:42 PM, royoftherovers said:

not fit for purpose and that you require him to make good the system

But it only had 12 months warranty, it lasted longer than that, their argument would be it was purpose made to last 12 months minimum, which it did and more. A judge would only rule on whats written in this case & the dealer has 'No case to answer'.

[royoftherovers]

1 hour ago, dendonc said:

But it only had 12 months warranty, it lasted longer than that, their argument would be it was purpose made to last 12 months minimum, which it did and more. A judge would only rule on whats written in this case & the dealer has 'No case to answer'.

The Warranty is irrelevant Den. A Judge will not rule on what`s written, he will rule on the facts of the case. A new system costing a significant sum of money should provide  for a significant period of time.

What would the man on the Clapham Omnibus think?

[dendonc]

36 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

The Warranty is irrelevant Den. A Judge will not rule on what`s written

He would have no >legal choice<

 

36 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

A new system costing a significant sum of money should provide  for a significant period of time.

It's one of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of products which are 'poor value for money' there is >no law< which states a product must not be an exorbitant price.

In this case a customer accepted the goods on offer for the price & took over as the legal owner. The owner went on to use the goods as described.The goods lasted for at least as long as they were garanteed for  so in law, the goods were 'fit for purpose'.

As far as  charging exorbitant prices for goods its perfectly >legal< buyer accepts the contract 'offer', if I have a box of Swan Vestas matches & offer it for sale at £3,000 anyone is free to buy them at  £3,000, it is not illegal for me to sell a box of Swan Vestas matches at the price neither is it illegal for someone to buy them at .£3,000

[pandymo]

2 hours ago, dendonc said:

But it only had 12 months warranty, it lasted longer than that, their argument would be it was purpose made to last 12 months minimum, which it did and more. A judge would only rule on whats written in this case & the dealer has 'No case to answer'.

Technically the warrant is irrelevant as I was supplied the wrong parts. I received 2 ‘mufflers’ instead of 2 catalytic converters when I asked for a like for like replacement exhaust system. The mufflers in question were never going to do the job of the cats so it was a question of when, not if, the vehicle would fail the emissions.

[dendonc]

25 minutes ago, pandymo said:

Technically the warrant is irrelevant as I was supplied the wrong parts.

In which case had you taken the goods back you would have got your money back, but, instead you used them & by your own implication you knew they were ''The wrong parts'', therefor they lasted in good order for as long as the warranty lasted despite the fact ''They were the wrong parts''. The seller has no case to answer because you accepted the goods and used them in the knowledge they were ''The wrong parts''.<Based on what you've written about >the whole event' you will almost certainly and up paying your own court costs and theirs if you took this to  small claims court (max claim £10,000)

[plexus914]

14 hours ago, pandymo said:

Thanks for all the responses and good luck messages

Update:

@Malc the exhaust was heavily blowing round the cats and was advised this was non-repairable due to the amount of metal that had rusted away. the rest of the exhaust had really thin metal due to corrosion as well in some places hence why i went for the new system.

@steve2006 the CO2 emission level was .64% on fast idle (max 0.3% for pass). servicing is fully up-to-date with all invoices.

@black400 thanks for your suggestion of catclean - got 2 bottles and took it for a run, sadly no luck and it still failed the emissions - i think i know why now, hard to clean cats when you have no cats fitted!!! 😒

lamda sensors were also bringing up a fault code, changed those (£400!!), still failed the mot.

sourced 2 new cats for £75 each (non genuine Lexus but come with a 2 year warranty - longer than 1 year Lexus warranty 🙂) but they did the job and car has passed MOT. Upon inspection of the lexus supplied cats, the mechanic stated they were missing the honeycomb centres. Further investigation by myself confirmed that the catalytic convertor parts originally supplied to me from Lexuswere in fact incorrect, this is shown on the original invoice.  The part numbers supplied were 17550, when in fact the correct part numbers for the exhaust configuration with catalytic convertors should be 17400.  So Lexus have ordered the incorrect exhaust system when I provided them with my vehicle registration. In fact the "cats" are showing up as "sub-mufflers" on the original invoice and they didn't even notice this when I raised the original complaint last month! 

@royoftherovers i've taken your advice and formally written to the dealer principal today (cc Lexus UK) explaining the above and requested a refund for all the fees incurred as a result of this issue (just over £1k). If I don't get the fees refunded I'll definitely be taking this further. I was thinking ombudsman and then small claims in that order. what a palaver! Will keep you all posted.

thanks again.

Wow. Never knew that the exhaust system came with & without (W/O) catalytic converter option. Good to know.

 

EXHAUST PIPE

W/O (CONVERTER) (9410- )1UZFE..V ; (9410- )1UZFE..RHD..EUR option:

http://www.japan-parts.eu/lexus/gr/1996/ls400/ucf20r-aepgkw/5_431220_005_/tool-engine-fuel/1702_exhaust-pipe/1#17550

 

EXHAUST PIPE

W (CONVERTER) (9410- )  option:

http://www.japan-parts.eu/lexus/gr/1996/ls400/ucf20r-aepgkw/5_431220_005_/tool-engine-fuel/1702_exhaust-pipe/3

[pandymo]

16 hours ago, dendonc said:

In which case had you taken the goods back you would have got your money back, but, instead you used them & by your own implication you knew they were ''The wrong parts'', therefor they lasted in good order for as long as the warranty lasted despite the fact ''They were the wrong parts''. The seller has no case to answer because you accepted the goods and used them in the knowledge they were ''The wrong parts''.<Based on what you've written about >the whole event' you will almost certainly and up paying your own court costs and theirs if you took this to  small claims court (max claim £10,000)

Except I didn’t discover they were the wrong parts until yesterday, after doing my own research. I didn’t accept the goods on the knowledge they were the wrong parts, I  accepted the goods based on the knowledge they were the correct parts as requested.

[royoftherovers]

17 hours ago, dendonc said:

He would have no >legal choice<

 

It's one of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of products which are 'poor value for money' there is >no law< which states a product must not be an exorbitant price.

In this case a customer accepted the goods on offer for the price & took over as the legal owner. The owner went on to use the goods as described.The goods lasted for at least as long as they were garanteed for  so in law, the goods were 'fit for purpose'.

As far as  charging exorbitant prices for goods its perfectly >legal< buyer accepts the contract 'offer', if I have a box of Swan Vestas matches & offer it for sale at £3,000 anyone is free to buy them at  £3,000, it is not illegal for me to sell a box of Swan Vestas matches at the price neither is it illegal for someone to buy them at .£3,000

I have no wish to argue with you Den. You are picking and choosing parts of my response and as a result dealing with them out of context.

We must agree to disagree. 

[pandymo]

17 hours ago, dendonc said:

''The wrong parts'', therefor they lasted in good order for as long as the warranty lasted

I think you’re missing the point here - by all accounts and purposes the said ‘mufflers’ still appear to be in good working order, acting as straight through pieces of metal, so the warranty is not in question. The point is I didn’t request the mufflers - I requested a like-for-like exhaust system after supplying my car registration and only discovered yesterday I was supplied2 mufflers instead of 2 catalytic converters.

[AndyCheltenham1]

My opinion on this is that even though you only had a 1 year warranty the parts should not have failed so quickly and that they were not fit for purpose. If I were to buy a deep freezer with a 1 year guarantee and it packed up after the guarantee had expired I can still go back to the retailer up to 6 years after purchase and expect a repair or refund as it is unreasonable to expect it to last only 1 year ( even if the warranty was only for 1 year) If I had bought a kettle for £10 and it failed 2 years later it would be unreasonable to expect a repair/refund on a cheap item. So I think that compensation should be due from Lexus for supplying inferior parts.

I think that you will have a problem maybe because you actually fitted the wrong part and could it be argued that a competent mechanic/exhaust fitter should have known the part was incorrect and should not have fitted it?? If Lexus had also fitted the part then I think they would be 100% at fault.

[pandymo]

11 minutes ago, AndyCheltenham1 said:

My opinion on this is that even though you only had a 1 year warranty the parts should not have failed so quickly and that they were not fit for purpose. If I were to buy a deep freezer with a 1 year guarantee and it packed up after the guarantee had expired I can still go back to the retailer up to 6 years after purchase and expect a repair or refund as it is unreasonable to expect it to last only 1 year ( even if the warranty was only for 1 year) If I had bought a kettle for £10 and it failed 2 years later it would be unreasonable to expect a repair/refund on a cheap item. So I think that compensation should be due from Lexus for supplying inferior parts.

I think that you will have a problem maybe because you actually fitted the wrong part and could it be argued that a competent mechanic/exhaust fitter should have known the part was incorrect and should not have fitted it?? If Lexus had also fitted the part then I think they would be 100% at fault.

Thanks Andy. I thought the same ref inspection of part prior to fitting. By all accounts the exterior appearance of the cat and muffler is identical. It’s only on closer internal inspection that the difference is visible.

By all means the mechanic is very experienced and competent - I guess it all depends on the extent to which you’d expect a mechanic to internally inspect parts before fitting - especially if they’ve arrived from a main dealer. Bit of a grey area I suspect.

[dendonc]

1 hour ago, royoftherovers said:

I have no wish to argue with you Den. You are picking and choosing parts of my response and as a result dealing with them out of context.

Just so it is clear >what specific< context I've been talking about in all my posts. My posts refer only to some of legal issues which I did understand (many other legal points I did not know/understand), for the record, if you/anyone has a search in their browser it comes up with 4 incidents of 'ombudsman' & 10 incidents of the word 'court' >not all mine<. 

It would be very financially risky if the OP took this case to civil court and ended up with a judgment of 'seller has no case to answer', it would not cost anything to report it to the ombudsman. 

[royoftherovers]

5 minutes ago, dendonc said:

Just so it is clear >what specific< context I've been talking about in all my posts. My posts refer only to some of legal issues which I did understand (many other legal points I did not know/understand), for the record, if you/anyone has a search in their browser it comes up with 4 incidents of 'ombudsman' & 10 incidents of the word 'court' >not all mine<. 

It would be very financially risky if the OP took this case to civil court and ended up with a judgment of 'seller has no case to answer', it would not cost anything to report it to the ombudsman. 

Thanks Den. As I said, we must agree to disagree.

[runsgrateasanut]

Quote

the exhaust was heavily blowing round the cats and was advised this was non-repairable due to the amount of metal that had rusted away. the rest of the exhaust had really thin metal due to corrosion as well in some places hence why i went for the new system.

Unquote

My 1993 Cats were sufficiently good to be welded to a new Y pipe length.  I've got a pair of later LS, Cats and although the flanges may deteriorate to nothing, inside each end is a quarter inch of Stainless steel 1mm pipe to which new pipe can be welded after the flanges are removed.   Of course the old Cats are worth about £50 for scrap. Bet they didn't give them back to you?

If you take the matter to Court and it is defended then you can elect to have it resolved by mediation which used to be known as arbitration. Both sides will need agree and the matter can be dealt with via  a conference call to both parties by the Mediator. Don't necessarily expect the outcome to go your way, but it will be quicker and cheaper than a Court hearing where further fees will be payable, not to mention considerable extra work preparing your case and time delays, etc.  The Mediators decision is final and if in your favour and the defendant fails to pay the agreed compensation then you can apply for a Court Judgment after expiry of the time limit given the defendant.    

[pandymo]

15 minutes ago, runsgrateasanut said:

Quote

the exhaust was heavily blowing round the cats and was advised this was non-repairable due to the amount of metal that had rusted away. the rest of the exhaust had really thin metal due to corrosion as well in some places hence why i went for the new system.

Unquote

My 1993 Cats were sufficiently good to be welded to a new Y pipe length.  I've got a pair of later LS, Cats and although the flanges may deteriorate to nothing, inside each end is a quarter inch of Stainless steel 1mm pipe to which new pipe can be welded after the flanges are removed.   Of course the old Cats are worth about £50 for scrap. Bet they didn't give them back to you?

If you take the matter to Court and it is defended then you can elect to have it resolved by mediation which used to be known as arbitration. Both sides will need agree and the matter can be dealt with via  a conference call to both parties by the Mediator. Don't necessarily expect the outcome to go your way, but it will be quicker and cheaper than a Court hearing where further fees will be payable, not to mention considerable extra work preparing your case and time delays, etc.  The Mediators decision is final and if in your favour and the defendant fails to pay the agreed compensation then you can apply for a Court Judgment after expiry of the time limit given the defendant.    

Not really bothered about £50 in scrap value to be honest bearing in mind the thousands this whole saga has cost me. I saw the old exhaust system for myself - looked pretty bad so I feel it was the correct decision to replace as there were issues with every section.

I’m not expecting it to go my way, although at the same time I’m not prepared to sit and do nothing as I do feel aggrieved.

Thanks for the advice ref mediator.

 

 

 

[pandymo]

I’ve not a lawyer but found this under the Consumer Goods Act 2015

Misrepresentation

A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by a person or their agent that induces someone else to make a contract with them.

Dependent upon whether the misrepresentation was made fraudulently, negligently or innocently, the party who has relied on the misrepresentation will be entitled to a remedy that may include rescission (which means unwinding or cancelling the contract), refund and/or compensation.

I’m probably wrong but in my mind supplying the wrong part for my vehicle could be seen as misrepresentation through negligence (you’d expect a main dealer to provide  due care and attention to provide you a correct part).

 

 

[dendonc]

26 minutes ago, pandymo said:

I’m not expecting it to go my way, although at the same time I’m not prepared to sit and do nothing as I do feel aggrieved.

You need to be very, very careful as  regards taking it to small claims court in the frame of mind, if you are found/judged in court to be there because of your feelings theres a chance you will be found by the judge<>(prompted by defense solicitor) to be a vexatious litigant, it's up to you, I'm just making you aware that going to civil court to annoy people because you feel 'wronged'/'aggrieved' can have negative legal consequences for you.

https://bit.ly/2ODZV2T

Guidance Note: Vexatious Litigants and the Treasury Solicitor

https://bit.ly/2ODZV2T

.

.