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

[WhiteVanMan5]

Are you saying you didn't attach all your documents? If you didn't some of your documents may not be included in the trial bundle. You could confirm this with the solicitor.

No I didn't attach any documents. It was my intention to send them over to the solicitor a week or so before the trial bundle was due. Would I be better served sending them all over now?

[Frank1]

If it was me I would send all the documents by email as you are relying on them and will be referring to them in your witness statement.
Have you marked them with your reference?
In your covering email you could explain why you are sending all of them and ask if he intends to have a separate section for Claimant's Documents in the trial bundle.
Had the solicitor requested most of your documents, your method would mean a lot of duplication.

[Frank1]

I've just realised that witness statements are due to be exchanged in July. You would have to exhibit your documents with your statement as the defendants may not have a copy of a particular document you are referring to.
That's if you wait unti the trial bundle is being prepared to forward a full set of documents.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Make a diary note of your call with the inspector. Next week send your email to both defendants proposing that your inspector be appointed the SJE. State the advantages including the potential cost saving (your inspector has already carried out dismantling the engine to inspect the affected parts).
You should be wary about accepting any alternative inspector as SJE. Your right, the 2nd defendant does appear to be fishing to find an inspector that will give an opinion that tallies with their defences in respect of the very high mileage.
It does sound as if you are going to need to make an application. Refer to my previous posts about this.

I have asked my inspector to send me an email confirming details of the phone call.

I have been talking with AI (lol, that phraseology makes me laugh!!), and that has proposed that I send this email to the defendant and Part 20 defendant. It is specifically recomending that at this stage I do not raise the phone call by the Part 20 defendant to my inspector. I haven't verified details (e.g. Paragraph numbers/dates etc yet).



I write with reference to Paragraph 8 of the Court Order dated 26 March 2026, which requires the parties to cooperate in the agreement and instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) by 24 June 2026.

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.4, the costs of this expert are to be borne entirely by the Defendant and the Part 20 Defendant. In the interest of proportionality, litigation efficiency, and minimizing unnecessary costs for the defending parties, I wish to propose two practical pathways forward:

Option 1: Jointly Instructing the Existing Inspector The most logical and cost-effective approach is to jointly instruct the independent engineer who has already inspected the vehicle and oversaw the full engine teardown to the camshaft chain alongside a Master Vauxhall Technician.

Given that the physical engine component failure occurred nearly three years ago, a historic teardown record exists, and this specific engineer is already fully conversant with the vehicle's specific VIN history. Instructing a fresh expert to conduct a paper-based review of an engine they cannot physically inspect in its original failed state would introduce unnecessary duplication of fees and procedural delay.

Option 2: Dispensing with the SJE by Consent Alternatively, I invite the Defendants to consider whether a Single Joint Expert is required at all, given the significant technical developments that have occurred since the Financial Ombudsman Service's historic review in 2024.

The core factual and mechanical matrix is now entirely indisputable:

1. The vehicle manufacturer (Stellantis/Vauxhall) has formally issued a nationwide Safety Recall explicitly concerning the inherent manufacturing defect and premature failure of the 7mm camshaft chain on this specific 1.5 BlueHDi engine variant.
2. Vauxhall has directly confirmed in writing that the Claimant’s specific vehicle VIN is a positive match for, and subject to, this active safety recall.
3. The diagnosing Vauxhall main dealer (SLM Vauxhall) explicitly confirmed the mechanical destruction of the engine on 8 September 2023, noting that the timing chain had snapped and the pistons had struck the valves. The main dealer considered the mechanical cause so definitive that they formally declined Vauxhall Head Office's offer to fund further diagnostics on the basis that additional testing was entirely redundant and a complete engine replacement was the only viable remedy.

In light of these definitive manufacturer admissions and the main dealer's conclusive diagnosis, the mechanical cause of the failure is a matter of established fact rather than expert speculation. Dispensing with the SJE requirement via a simple consent order would save both Defendants significant legal expenses.

Please let me know by 4:00pm on Friday 5 June 2026 if you will accept the joint instruction of the existing engineer, or if you prefer to sign a draft consent order to dispense with the expert requirement entirely.

Should you reject both options and insist on introducing a new expert, please provide your proposed shortlist of three names along with their CVs and fee estimates. Please ensure that any expert you propose includes a formal declaration confirming they have had no prior formal, informal, or preliminary contact regarding this matter with either Defendant.

[WhiteVanMan5]

If it was me I would send all the documents by email as you are relying on them and will be referring to them in your witness statement.
Have you marked them with your reference?
In your covering email you could explain why you are sending all of them and ask if he intends to have a separate section for Claimant's Documents in the trial bundle.
Had the solicitor requested most of your documents, your method would mean a lot of duplication.

I will send them all today. I will ensure they are all labelled with the reference.

[Frank1]

Post 424, I'm not sure about the last sentence.
The defendants would have to make contact with auto engineers to ask if they are interested and available and prepared to quote.
Probably best to leave the sentence out and save the conversation between your inspector and the part 20 defendant for your witness statement enclosed with your court application.

[Frank1]

Did you get a chance to read about the Bulic case?

[WhiteVanMan5]

Post 424, I'm not sure about the last sentence.
The defendants would have to make contact with auto engineers to ask if they are interested and available and prepared to quote.
Probably best to leave the sentence out and save the conversation between your inspector and the part 20 defendant for your witness statement enclosed with your court application.

I think AI is covering off my concerns about any nominated expert of theirs having been pre vetted and already having been confirmed as sympathetic to the defence. It seems a terrible system (unfair, unreasonable) for appointing a SJE! But I will remove the last sentence.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Did you get a chance to read about the Bulic case?

Yes I did.
I confess when I read it, I didn't feel it was particularly relevant to my case. But the details escape my memory banks now. I'll have another read

[Frank1]

The claimant Bulic was unhappy with the SJE that had been appointed and he was prevented from relying on his expert in court. His appeal was successful in the High Court.
The judge decided that an appellant should be allowed to rely on their expert if the evidence was reasonably necessary reach a fair outcome, regardless of the size of the claim.

[WhiteVanMan5]

Presumably there is no practical way I can use that to assist me currently?
I have sent a shared google link over to the defendant and the part 20 defendant of my entire document pack, all with my document reference in the bottom right hand corner.

[Frank1]

If you have to make an application for permission to rely on your inspectors report in court, you should refer to this case in your witness statement

[WhiteVanMan5]

Post 424, I'm not sure about the last sentence.
The defendants would have to make contact with auto engineers to ask if they are interested and available and prepared to quote.
Probably best to leave the sentence out and save the conversation between your inspector and the part 20 defendant for your witness statement enclosed with your court application.

How about this as a revised option? (last paragraph the substantive change)

I write with reference to Paragraph 8 of the Court Order dated 26 March 2026, which requires the parties to cooperate in the agreement and instruction of a Single Joint Expert (SJE) by 24 June 2026.

Pursuant to Paragraph 8.4, the costs of this expert are to be borne entirely by the Defendant and the Part 20 Defendant. In the interest of proportionality, litigation efficiency, and minimising unnecessary costs for the defending parties, I wish to propose two practical pathways forward:

Option 1: Jointly Instructing the Existing Inspector The most logical and cost-effective approach is to jointly instruct the independent engineer who has already inspected the vehicle and oversaw the full engine teardown to the camshaft chain alongside a Master Vauxhall Technician.

Given that the physical engine component failure occurred nearly three years ago, a historic teardown record exists, and this specific engineer is already fully conversant with the vehicle's specific VIN history. Instructing a fresh expert to conduct a paper-based review of an engine they cannot physically inspect in its original failed state would introduce unnecessary duplication of fees and procedural delay.

Option 2: Dispensing with the SJE by Consent Alternatively, I invite the Defendants to consider whether a Single Joint Expert is required at all, given the significant technical developments that have occurred since the Financial Ombudsman Service's historic review in 2024.

The core factual and mechanical matrix is now entirely indisputable:

1. The vehicle manufacturer (Stellantis/Vauxhall) has formally issued a nationwide Safety Recall explicitly concerning the inherent manufacturing defect and premature failure of the 7mm camshaft chain on this specific 1.5 BlueHDi engine variant.
2. Vauxhall has directly confirmed in writing that the Claimant’s specific vehicle VIN is a positive match for, and subject to, this active safety recall.
3. The diagnosing Vauxhall main dealer (SLM Vauxhall) explicitly confirmed the mechanical destruction of the engine on 8 September 2023, noting that the timing chain had snapped and the pistons had struck the valves. The main dealer considered the mechanical cause so definitive that they formally declined Vauxhall Head Office's offer to fund further diagnostics on the basis that additional testing was entirely redundant and a complete engine replacement was the only viable remedy.

In light of these definitive manufacturer admissions and the main dealer's conclusive diagnosis, the mechanical cause of the failure is a matter of established fact rather than expert speculation. Dispensing with the SJE requirement via a simple consent order would save both Defendants significant legal expenses.

Please let me know by 4:00pm on Friday 5 June 2026 if you will accept the joint instruction of the existing engineer, or if you prefer to sign a draft consent order to dispense with the expert requirement entirely.

Should you reject both options and insist on introducing a new expert, please provide your proposed shortlist of three names along with their CVs for my consideration.

Following the recent direct telephone contact made by the Second Defendant to my independent inspecting engineer regarding the vehicle's mileage and durability, please ensure that any expert shortlist you provide is accompanied by a written confirmation from each candidate stating that they have not engaged in any prior substantive discussions regarding the mechanical merits, facts, or defensive arguments of this claim with either Defendant.

[Frank1]

That's better Do you think you should give the defendants a bit more time? The 5th June is next Friday.

[WhiteVanMan5]

That's better Do you think you should give the defendants a bit more time? The 5th June is next Friday.

I hadn't thought about the date. How does 12th June sound? And I'll send it today.