Cam Chain snapped on new van after 20 months / 114k miles

[WhiteVanMan5]

I would actually add the invoice to the POC, or just state that I intend to rely on it?

[Frank1]

Include it with your poc.
Also Include any documents, invoices etc you refer to in the calculation of your loss and expense.

I wouldn'wouldn't rush to post it to the court and both defendants. If you can, wait until you receive court directions in case you misunderstood what the judge said at the hearing.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Yes, absolutely no plans to submit until the last second.
My brains a bit mashed at the moment, I'll continue this tomorrow.
Thanks again for all your support and suggestions.

[Frank1]

You should include with your poc all documents you refer to and are relying on.
In the small claims track holding back these documents until filing and exchange of witness statements and evidence would be too late

[Frank1]

4 2 don't state two expert reports, a party is only allowed one in SMC. You could call the first report a diagnostic check if that's what it is.

[Frank1]

You are also relying on service invoices to prove you maintained the van in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. So you should list those in your poc and include copies of the invoices.

[WhiteVanMan5]

AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

Claim No: **********
Between: ******* (Claimant)
and - ********* (Defendant / Part 20 Claimant)
and - ********* (Part 20 Defendant)

1. Introduction and Purchase

1.1 The Claimant is a sole trader operating as a Sameday Courier.
1.2 On 19 November 2021, the Claimant purchased a Vauxhall Combo 2300 L2 1.5 100 Sportive van, registration number ******* ("the Vehicle"), from the Part 20 Defendant for business use. The Vehicle was purchased new, but pre-registered, for the sum of £15,395 plus VAT.
1.3 The purchase was part-funded using a credit facility provided by the Defendant.
1.4 The Claimant brings this claim under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which holds the Defendant jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract by the supplier. The supply contract sum of £15,395 plus VAT falls within the required price band set by the Act of £100 to £30,000.

2. Breach of Contract (Sale of Goods Act 1979)

2.1 Under Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, there is an implied term that the Vehicle supplied must be of satisfactory quality, which includes the requirement of durability.
2.2 The Vehicle was not of satisfactory quality nor durable. It was supplied with a latent manufacturing defect; specifically, it was fitted with a 7mm timing chain mechanism prone to premature catastrophic failure.

3. Servicing, Breakdown, and Diagnosis

3.1 The Vehicle has been serviced in line with manufacturer requirements of approximately every 25,000 miles. The Claimant relies on attached servicing invoices at the following mileages: 24,934, 49,322, 74,249, and 102,526 miles.
3.2 On 31 July 2023, the Vehicle suffered a catastrophic engine failure while in motion. The Claimant relies on attached dashcam footage showing the moment the timing chain snapped.
3.3 The Vehicle was recovered to a Vauxhall Dealership (SLM). The dealership confirmed the timing chain failure and the resulting destruction of the engine. The Claimant relies on an attached email from ********* of SLM declining a request from Vauxhall Head Office to carry out further diagnostics, stating: "the Vehicle does not require further diagnostics, the fault has been confirmed."

4. Evidence of the Inherent Defect

4.1 The Claimant avers that the failure was due to an inherent defect present at the time of manufacture.
4.2 During the pre-action complaints process, the Defendant requested the Claimant to obtain independent expert evidence. The Claimant relies on an attached expert report by **********, which states the failure was caused by an inherent manufacturing problem.
4.3 The Claimant relies on an attached article published by the technical journal L'Argus on 7 November 2022 (updated 15 January 2024) highlighting the widespread failure rate of this specific 1.5 diesel DV5 engine.

5. The Stellantis Safety Recall and Identification

5.1 On 3 July 2025, Stellantis issued a safety recall (Reference R/2025/319) addressing the failure of the 7mm timing chain in this engine type.
5.2 The DVSA recall database confirms this recall applies to the make, model, and year of the Claimant's Vehicle.
5.3 The Claimant has physically verified that the Vehicle is fitted with the defective hardware targeted by the recall. The Claimant relies on attached photographic evidence of the camshaft casing on the Vehicle’s engine, which bears the engraved number 9812647280.
5.4 The Claimant relies on attached technical documentation confirming that engraving 9812647280 is the definitive identifier of the 7mm timing chain setup subject to the recall.

6. Particulars of Losses

6.1 The Claimant claims the total sum of £9,825.16, broken down as follows:
- Van value loss: £5,421.00. This is a discounted sum based on the difference between the market value and salvage value. The Claimant relies on an attached Parkers Valuation (28 October 2023) giving a private sale value of £9,455.00 (adjusted for mileage) and an attached salvage offer from CarTakeBack (20 October 2024) of £1,534.00.
- Independent Expert Report: £1,300.00. This was commissioned at the express request of the Defendant during the complaints stage.
- Vehicle Recovery: £132.96.
- Lost Income: £2,971.20. The Claimant relies on an attached schedule of Quarterly Gross Revenue. This data demonstrates normal trading levels prior to the breakdown, followed by a substantial fall in revenue to £4,589.33 in Q3 2023, and a continued deficit at £7,727.24 in Q4 2023.

7. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.



Signed: _______________________
Name: *********
Date: _______________________

[WhiteVanMan5]

Numbers don't really add up - but what they do is demonstrate a conservative claim. Curring claim from over £30k to below £10k. Does that work with numbers not adding up? E.g. on the van valuation?

[Frank1]

You could add that the parkers valuation is for a similar vehicle of same age and then go on to say how you adjusted the valuation for a different mileage.
Do you have an invoice for vehicle recovery? You haven't mentioned it
Did you get any prices for hiring a van to drive in Europe and based on your average weekly mileage? You could state why you discounted this option
Have you included the verbal (or written) estimate you got from Vauxhall to repair/replace the engine?

[WhiteVanMan5]

The parkers valuation was for my specific van at my specific age.
Yes I have the vehicle recovery invoice. I will add a note to that in the POC. That was recovery from Vauxhall to my home address because Vauxhall were about to start charging me £25 per day (IIRC) storage.
I didn't get specific formal quotes for hiring at that time, because I knew it was prohibative. I looked into it again recently with my Peugeot off the road and it's just a complete non starter. The hire itself is reasonable, it's getting the temporary hire and reward insurances that is prohibitive (or even impossible). Getting papers to get out of the country starts at £400 from my recent enquiries.
The engine replacement fee from Vauxhall was entirely verbal. I did however have a "resolver.co.uk" complaint running at the time and I logged details of the call in there. I will add that to my POC.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Actually, looking into it further - I don't have the vehicle recovery invoice. What I have is an email quote and a credit card statement showing it was paid.

With respect to the hire vehicle, I'm worried about "over complicating" things, given the marginality of the call between Small Claims and Fast Track. My actual loss of income is substantially higher than what I'm claiming. Am I being naive in hoping that if things are reasonable, then they should be ok? I know I have a responsability to minimise losses - which is easy with hindsight - but when you're "living" the process, it always seems that you're getting closer to resolution - you never imagine it's going to drag on like it has. You always think you're just one answer away from everything being resolved.

[Frank1]

Emailed quote and cc statement is okay

Don't worry about leaving out the hire vehicle.

I should have realised the claimant must include everything they rely on in SMC. In the fast track parties have the opportunity to request documents from the other party during the court process.

[Frank1]

You should Google David Adam v Moneybarn No 1 Ltd and read about the case in Scotland
The claimants expert considered the DS3 needed a replacement timing chain. The defendant's expert stated the loss of power/misfire could be caused by a faulty spark plug or a problem with the exhaust.
The sheriff ruled in favour of the defendant stating the claimant had not proved what was actually causing the problem with the car.
Your expert has proved the damage to your van's engine happened when the chain snapped and the evidence you are providing about the recall proves on the balance of probabilities that the van suffered from a latent defect.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Is Scottish precedent applicable to England? But as you say, hopefully my evidnece is a lot clearer. Plus it's a new vehicle in my case against an older, used vehicle in the case you have cited.

I've been thinking about section 5 of my POC and wanted to be a bit more explicit about the extended coverage for the chain from the manufacturer. Any thoughts on this rewrite?

5. The Stellantis Safety Recall and Manufacturer Durability Expectations

5.1 On 3 July 2025, Stellantis issued a safety recall (Reference R/2025/319) addressing the failure of the 7mm timing chain in this engine type. The DVSA recall database confirms this recall applies to the make, model, and year of the Claimant's Vehicle.
5.2 Concurrently, Stellantis published a press release confirming extended "Special Coverage" for 1.5 BlueHDi diesel engines produced between October 2017 and January 2023, specifically addressing the camshaft chain issue.
5.3 This special coverage from the manufacturer explicitly covers parts and labour costs for this component for up to 10 years or 150,000 miles.
5.4 The Claimant avers that this establishes the manufacturer’s own benchmark for the expected durability of the timing chain. The Vehicle's timing chain failed after just 20 months and approximately 114,000 miles, falling substantially short of the manufacturer's own expected lifespan.
5.5 Furthermore, the Claimant has physically verified that the Vehicle is fitted with the defective hardware targeted by the manufacturer. The Claimant relies on photographic evidence of the camshaft casing on the Vehicle’s engine, which bears the engraved number 9812647280.
5.6 The Claimant relies on technical documentation confirming that engraving 9812647280 is the definitive identifier of the defective 7mm timing chain setup subject to the recall.

[Frank1]

No, decisions in Scottish courts aren't binding in English courts.
Section 5 reads fine, much improved. I can't think of anything missing.