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

[AGreen8]

I'll get onto that this evening.

I'm presuming, with lawyers, this will be costing them quite a bit more to defend than what the case is worth if it stays in the small claims track (and even in the fast track with the cap on fees)? Seems strange they're fighting it so hard on what should look, a fair and reasonable claim? Presumably it's a macro decision to dissuade other cases against them?

Hi, they have obviously been instructed by Stellantis to defend your case at any cost.
If such a straightforward case was lost by Stellantis, that makes it very easy for the 1.3m other people affected by this to then make their claims, myself included.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Surely the easiest way for Stellantis to avoid defeat in court would be to have made a reasonable settlement?

[WhiteVanMan5]

Frank1 Any thoughts on the final section "18 Costs in the case" from the court order? Is that simply a relic of when the defence wanted the fast track? Is that line anything for me to worry about and challenge?

[WhiteVanMan5]

How does this email to the court manager sound? Obviously I need to submit my POC before I will receive a response.

Dear Court Manager,

Claim Number: ******** Parties: ********* v ********* Bank UK Plc T/A ********* Bank & ********** Limited Hearing Date: 16 March 2026 before Deputy District Judge *********

I am writing to respectfully seek clarification regarding the written directions order dated 26 March 2026, following the preliminary hearing before DDJ ********.

Paragraph 8 of the order provides directions for the instruction of a Single Joint Expert, with costs to be borne equally by the First and Second Defendants.

During the hearing, we discussed the fact that I had already obtained independent expert reports from Mr ******** (dated 22 December 2023 and 24 May 2024). These reports were commissioned prior to litigation at the express request of the First Defendant during their complaints process.

It was my understanding from the oral discussion in the hearing that DDJ ******** granted permission for me to continue to rely upon Mr ********’s reports as part of my evidence, alongside the new report to be produced by the Single Joint Expert. However, I note that the written order is silent on my permission to rely on my existing expert evidence.

Could this email please be placed before DDJ ******** to clarify whether this omission was an administrative oversight (capable of correction under the CPR 40.12 'slip rule'), or whether the Court's intention is that Mr ********'s reports should simply be relied upon as standard documentary evidence attached to my Amended Particulars of Claim, rather than formal expert evidence under CPR Part 35?

I have copied the legal representatives for the First and Second Defendants into this communication.

I look forward to hearing from the Court.

Yours faithfully,

[Frank1]

The email is good. Hope a n244 is unnecessary

[WhiteVanMan5]

Ok, final check on what I intend to send tomorrow afternoon by email (No documents and no document list attached):

Subject: Filing of Claimant's Amended Particulars of Claim - Claim ******* - ******** v ******** Bank UK Plc & ******** - Deadline 30 March 2026

To: ******** CC: ********, ********

Dear Court Manager,

Claim Number: ******** Parties: ******** v ******** Bank UK Plc (1st Defendant) & ******** (Part 20 Defendant)

Please find attached the Claimant’s Amended Particulars of Claim, filed and served in accordance with Paragraph 1 of the Order made by Deputy District Judge Elliott dated 26 March 2026.

The attached document has been duly signed and dated with a Statement of Truth.

Please note that in accordance with Paragraph 5.1 of the same Order regarding the standard disclosure of documents, the evidential exhibits referred to within this amended pleading will be provided to the parties by the deadline of 4pm on 20 May 2026, and are therefore not attached to this filing.

By copy of this email, the First Defendant and the Part 20 Defendant are served with this amended pleading.

Yours faithfully,

******** (Claimant)



AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
Claim No: ********
Between: ******** (Claimant)

• and - ******** Bank UK Plc T/A ******** Bank (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 KN71 SVJ ("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. The 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 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 dashcam footage showing the moment the timing chain snapped.

3.3 The Vehicle was recovered to a Vauxhall Dealership (********). The dealership confirmed the timing chain failure and the resulting destruction of the engine. The Claimant relies on an email from ******** of ******** 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 expert report by ******** (dated 22 December 2023 and 24 May 2024), which state the failure was caused by an inherent manufacturing problem.

4.3 The Claimant relies on an article published by 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. 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 manufacturers 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 Vehicles 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.

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 a Parkers Valuation (28 October 2023) giving a private sale value of £9,455.00 (adjusted for mileage) and a 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. The Claimant relies on invoices from ******** to evidence this charge.
• Vehicle Recovery: £132.96. Recovery from Vauxhall ******** to Claimants home driveway to avoid £25 per day storage charges. The Claimant relies on an email quote and bank statements to evidence this charge.
• Lost Income: £2,971.20. The Claimant relies on quarterly gross sales figures to evidence this conservative estimate of lost income.

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]

I am still chasing Vauxhall for a definitive response on the recall in relation to my vehicle. What happens if I receive that after my amended POC is submitted? Is there anything I can add now to allow for that if it comes in later?

[Frank1]

1.2 you have omitted info about proof of purchase, date of purchase. Not sure why. I do think you need to include it.

You could add para 4 4 about your letter to Vauxhall. No reply yet but will file and serve reply when received.

It is important to show how you calculated your loss of income. Refer to any documents used in your calculation.

Likewise you need to show how you calculated Van value loss. This is your only chance. You can't put calculations in your witness statement.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Good Catch. Thank you.

1.2 On 19 November 2021, the Claimant purchased a Vauxhall Combo 2300 L2 1.5 100 Sportive van, registration number KN71 SVJ ("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. The Claimant relies on WorldPay Card Transaction Confirmation email from 19^th November 2021 confirming £250 credit card deposit payment. The Claimant relies on payment receipt emailed by Part 20 Defendant on 6^th December 2021 for the balance of £18,554.

4.4 The Claimant has outstanding queries with Vauxhall confirming the recall status of the vehicle. The Claimant intends to rely on these answers when received from Vauxhall. These answers will be filed and served when received.

Is section 4.4 a good idea? I'm not sure that Vauxhall/Stellantis will actually give me the information I'm after, effectively incriminating themselves! I find it probable that I will have to rely on the camshaft casing serial number, in combination with the online publications stating that means it's a 7mm chain. Unofficial sources, so I don't know if that will be problematic.

With respect to costs I genuinely can't remember how I came up with those exact numbers. They were obviously artificially reduced to keep it in the small claims track (though there was a proper calculation). I'll work through old files and try and find my calcs. It doesn't work to say, Van Value of £9825 minus salvage value of £1534 gives a loss in value of £8291, but I've cut my claim to £5421 to stay in the small claims track?

Similar with lost income. £2,971.20 massively understates my lost income.

[Frank1]

See your post 262.
You could adjust valuation of the van based on mileage to produce a lower figure. Refer to parkers valuation and scrap value and quote/estimate
Also this post had more detail about your lost Income. State a reasonable period for lost income and show calculation to produce your claimed loss Do not change any totals from your original claim.
The letter to Vauxhall is not that important.

[Frank1]

Remove "expert" in your poc and email. State qualified auto technician or whatever instead. Expert is defined in cpr as a specialist that has been appointed

[Frank1]

Post 279
The judge told the solicitor the SUE'S report may have to be based on your engineers report.
Have read of cpr 35 and PD 35
You could contact the author of the report to find out if they would be prepared to add to their report to make it cpr 35 compliant.
Make the engineer aware of the latest dates to meet the directions
The engineer wouldn't have to attend trial but may have to answer written questions

[WhiteVanMan5]

I have removed section 4.4.

The email was sent yesterday, so I cannot change the reference to "expert".

I believe both expert reports are already CPR35 compliant. I have updated the expert and he remains available to me as required, including to attend court if that were required. (He is used to court proceedings and what is required of them).

"See your post 262." - I'm not sure what I'm looking for there, that version doesn't have any substantial differences on the way I have dealt with costs.

"You could adjust valuation of the van based on mileage to produce a lower figure" The parkers valuation, the screenshot is a fixed figure that is returned when the mileage for the van is input. There's no latitude to reduce that valuation. I haven't checked my files yet to try and find the previous methodology for the calculations. I'm looking now.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Ok, I'm almost there on the valuation.
I have a screenshot for a very similar van - age and mileage - in Autotrader at £6,995 + VAT. Subtract from that the screenshot I have for scrap value at £1,534 and the valuation comes in at £5,461. This is £40 different to the £5,421 valuation I have in my POC. Still working to see if I can work out why it's not exact.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Thank you Huxie that is really helpful.

Pezza54 The nearest vehicle to mine that I can find on Autotrader is this one - https://www.autotrader.co.uk/van-det...02410185332804 - it's actually a pretty good match. Main differences are that the advertised one is slightly older (21 plate v 71 plate) and has slightly lower mileage (108k v 114k). The value now though is obviously considerably lower than it was over a year ago when the chain snapped. Should I use these figures now anyway? I have also just obtained a scrap value quotation from www.cartakeback.com of £1,534.

If I revise my claim using these figures, then it will look something like this:
Van value loss £5,421 (calculated with the Autotrader price of £6,955 minus Cartakeback scrap value of £1,534)
Expert Report cost of £1,300, as charged
Vehicle Recovery £132.96 as charged
Lost income £2,971.20 (My lost income from 1/8/22 to 17/8/22 compared to 1/8/23 to 17/8/23)
Total claim £9,825.16

Just to confirm that I have noted your previous comment about not showing calculations in the letter, I will display it in the letter as follows:
Van value loss £5,421
Expert Report cost of £1,300
Vehicle Recovery £132.96
Lost income £2,971.20
Total claim £9,825.16

I haven't sent the LBA yet. Is that ready to go now and should I do that straight away? I then prepare the PoC whilst I am waiting for a response?
Is an email of LBA acceptable (attached pdf) if I get confirmation of receipt?

Ok, looking back at the post above, it seems the valuation came about following a typo of the van as £6,955 instead of £6,995.

I have information on "lost income" in that post too. I was off the road for a lot longer than the period specified, but reduced the claim to keep it in the small claims track. I'll double check the figures now against my accounts.