Hi Guys,
This is to highlight the incompetent behaviour from the RAC and there total refusal to admit liability.
The vehicle is a Landrover Discovery 2 4.0L V8.
The vehicle was driven into the services, it had driven fine, temp gauge bang in the middle, no problem. But when the vehicle pulled up, water vapour was noticeable on the windscreen, and there was water under the vehicle. On popping the bonnet you could see that the bleed screw in the top hose across the top of the radiator housing had broken. This was discussed with a mechanic, who in turn advised that a bolt of similar size could be used as a temp repair until the proper screw was purchased for 20 pence or so.
The insurance company had provided free RAC cover with the policy, so they were phoned. The failure and the repair were discussed with the RAC where one of their Tech guys agreed with the repair. The Patrol Man was then waited for.
The Patrol man, did not carry out the repair, but proceeded to tape up the top hose, over the bleed hole with many layers of tape. He returned this hose and proceeded to fill and bleed up the system using the funnel method. This was actually carried out using a cut in half 1L screen wash bottle; he didnt seem to have a funnel. There are proper funnels for this purpose, and as far as I am aware it would have been better to detach the header tank and raise it at least 8inch above the highest point of the coolant system.
A mechanic and I agree that for this to have worked without any bleed point, that the thermostat should have been removed and left an open system, quite common when there is nowhere to get any parts, wilderness etc. maybe not the motorway services, near Nottingham(smile). Other people two independent Landrover Specialist and including two ex RAC men, said it should have not been repaired, but recovered to a garage, where the screw could have been replaced and bled up properly. An old man who worked for Armstrong Massey (Landrover dealer), from a boy says this was not the correct repair.
I would like to point out this is the old pipe configuration, which from research Ive found is quite a common failure, with a good repair been a brass screw.
This been done and told to carry on with our journey, some 40 miles later, the vehicle this time failed dramatically with lots of steam, total overheating etc. This unfortunately was on the M42 during rush hour where you use the hard shoulder, so had to be driven overheated until a refuge could be found.
The hose that is a right angle over the top of the alternator pulley had worn through; you can see that the pulley and belt has contacted it many times.
This was inspected eventually by an RAC Manager, by using sight and touch; amazingly this did not feature in his report at all.
The RAC stance is that this is a perfectly acceptable repair, and in no way did the Patrol Man move or affect the positions of the hose while taping up the top hose. I think its amazing that a hose that has sat in the car for several years going about its business has never failed, but all of a sudden throws itself into the alternator belt. The evidence is clear on the hose of the contacts, and that basically the top hose was pushed over in its clips when refitted, causing the contact.
The RAC accept no responsibility for this what so ever. In fact the Customer Services official stance is there is no evidence to support this.
This has been taken as high as the Operations Director Mr M Cooley, with the CEO of the RAC Mr C. Woodhouse copied in on everything.
Their opinion has never changed with the RAC not at fault.
I think you all need to know about this, obviously its not doing the case in
Question any good, but it will stop people been abused by them in future.
You can follow this link if you wont to post on the RAC forum, although you do have to become a member, is quite ease and quick though.
How Many Engineers opinions does it take!?
Or please join our twitter group
@AvoidRACcover
Mr Cooley has stated that he is quite happy to respond to third parties on this matter, but not sure if Im really allowed to post his email address.
Here goes though, and the case in question is Ref: D. Warby REF 04812
[email protected]
Thanks for reading this, there is more, with lies from the Patrol man and constant contradictions from Mr Cooley, but we will leave it at that.
Thanks for your support and comments.
This is to highlight the incompetent behaviour from the RAC and there total refusal to admit liability.
The vehicle is a Landrover Discovery 2 4.0L V8.
The vehicle was driven into the services, it had driven fine, temp gauge bang in the middle, no problem. But when the vehicle pulled up, water vapour was noticeable on the windscreen, and there was water under the vehicle. On popping the bonnet you could see that the bleed screw in the top hose across the top of the radiator housing had broken. This was discussed with a mechanic, who in turn advised that a bolt of similar size could be used as a temp repair until the proper screw was purchased for 20 pence or so.
The insurance company had provided free RAC cover with the policy, so they were phoned. The failure and the repair were discussed with the RAC where one of their Tech guys agreed with the repair. The Patrol Man was then waited for.
The Patrol man, did not carry out the repair, but proceeded to tape up the top hose, over the bleed hole with many layers of tape. He returned this hose and proceeded to fill and bleed up the system using the funnel method. This was actually carried out using a cut in half 1L screen wash bottle; he didnt seem to have a funnel. There are proper funnels for this purpose, and as far as I am aware it would have been better to detach the header tank and raise it at least 8inch above the highest point of the coolant system.
A mechanic and I agree that for this to have worked without any bleed point, that the thermostat should have been removed and left an open system, quite common when there is nowhere to get any parts, wilderness etc. maybe not the motorway services, near Nottingham(smile). Other people two independent Landrover Specialist and including two ex RAC men, said it should have not been repaired, but recovered to a garage, where the screw could have been replaced and bled up properly. An old man who worked for Armstrong Massey (Landrover dealer), from a boy says this was not the correct repair.
I would like to point out this is the old pipe configuration, which from research Ive found is quite a common failure, with a good repair been a brass screw.
This been done and told to carry on with our journey, some 40 miles later, the vehicle this time failed dramatically with lots of steam, total overheating etc. This unfortunately was on the M42 during rush hour where you use the hard shoulder, so had to be driven overheated until a refuge could be found.
The hose that is a right angle over the top of the alternator pulley had worn through; you can see that the pulley and belt has contacted it many times.
This was inspected eventually by an RAC Manager, by using sight and touch; amazingly this did not feature in his report at all.
The RAC stance is that this is a perfectly acceptable repair, and in no way did the Patrol Man move or affect the positions of the hose while taping up the top hose. I think its amazing that a hose that has sat in the car for several years going about its business has never failed, but all of a sudden throws itself into the alternator belt. The evidence is clear on the hose of the contacts, and that basically the top hose was pushed over in its clips when refitted, causing the contact.
The RAC accept no responsibility for this what so ever. In fact the Customer Services official stance is there is no evidence to support this.
This has been taken as high as the Operations Director Mr M Cooley, with the CEO of the RAC Mr C. Woodhouse copied in on everything.
Their opinion has never changed with the RAC not at fault.
I think you all need to know about this, obviously its not doing the case in
Question any good, but it will stop people been abused by them in future.
You can follow this link if you wont to post on the RAC forum, although you do have to become a member, is quite ease and quick though.
How Many Engineers opinions does it take!?
Or please join our twitter group
@AvoidRACcover
Mr Cooley has stated that he is quite happy to respond to third parties on this matter, but not sure if Im really allowed to post his email address.
Here goes though, and the case in question is Ref: D. Warby REF 04812
[email protected]
Thanks for reading this, there is more, with lies from the Patrol man and constant contradictions from Mr Cooley, but we will leave it at that.
Thanks for your support and comments.
