Toyota 1KD Story

 

IN Queensland Civil and Administration Tribunal

BRISBANE File number:  TBA

COURT USE ONLY

Court           

 Location

QCAT, 

Level 11/259 Queen St, BRISBANE QLD 4000

Court date  

Court time  

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Applicant

Bartrac Toyota (Tully)

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT 

Name of deponent: XXXXXXXXXX

Date affirmed: ……../……../ 2 0 2 0  

I, XXXXXXXXXX (“The Applicant”) of XX Jasmin Drive, Bongaree in the State of Queensland, Business Data Analyst hereby affirm:

1. Bartrac Toyota of Tully, Brisbane is the (“The Respondent”) in this matter

2. Toyota Australia of Port Melbourne, Australia is (“The Principal”) in this matter.

3. Paul Barra (Director) is the Respondent primary contact in this matter.

4. On 9 July 2022 the applicant commenced a trip north from his residence (Bribie Island) in his Toyota Prado. 

5. The Vehicle is 8 years old, but has been fully serviced and has not yet run 200,000 KMs. The engine is 1KD D4D. 

6. A conservative expected engine life  is 300,000 (miles) or 482,000 (kms) at least.

7. There is a Toyota recognised known fault with this engine and year model.

8. On 12 July 2022, just 5 KMs north of Cardwell the Applicants car stopped with a mechanical fault.

9. The fault was later confirmed (by Toyota) to be that of the known Toyota piston crack bulletin.

10. The Applicants vehicle was towed using RACQ services to Cardwell for initial assessment.

11. The Applicants camper was towed to a nearby caravan park.

12. After an initial assessment the RACQ mechanic stated that the engine had a ‘hole’ or cracked piston.

13. An engine was sourced by the mechanic and freighted to Cardwell from Brisbane at a cost to the Applicant.

14. On or about 15 July 2022, The Applicant then hired a car to visit Bartrac Toyota to ask about the cause of the engine failure.

15. The Dealer advised that any work on the engine at the mechanics should cease (it had not started), and that the engine should be assessed by the Dealer as it was thought a common identified fault would be the caused.

16. The Respondent stated that a service bulletin was published at Toyota regarding the splitting of piston in that model, and that to be certain the engine Head would need to be removed, a photo would need to be taken and a claim submitted.

17. The Applicant made it very clear to the Respondent that the matter was urgent as the Applicant was at least three days drive from home and needed the vehicle urgently for work.

18. The dealer reassured the Applicant stating that the claim process would take approx. 2 days once the head was removed from the engine.

19. In accordance with the Respondents advice, The Applicant advised the RACQ mechanic to halt any work and arranged to have the vehicle immediately towed 43 KMs north to the Dealers workshop. 

20. The mechanic (RACQ) was advised that the replacement engine (in Cardwell) was no longer required as it appeared the fault would be covered by Toyota.

21. The Applicant booked the vehicle into the Dealer to be assessed as above.

22. On 21 July 2022 (being several days later),  the Applicant called to ask about progress and was advised that the workshop was busy and the vehicle was now scheduled to be first examined 1st August 2022.

23. The Applicant was at this time again advised that the engine would “likely be covered, it was just a matter of process and that I may need to submit the vehicles service history in due course”

24. In light of this the Applicant decided to reject the RACQ mechanics engine and have the warranty work done at Toyota. 

25. The Applicant incurred a cost of $600 for return freight.

26. Annexed hereto and marked “20220721 Receipt” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

27. On 1 August 2022, the Applicant called the Respondent to confirm the work was occurring on this day and was advised that the mechanic now had Covid. He was expected at work the following day. The Respondent here missed the opportunity to update the Applicant.

28. On 2 August 2022, the Applicant called the Respondent and was advised “the mechanic was back at work, but that vehicle would only be worked on when we get around to it”

29. On 3 August 2022, The Applicant asked that when the work is done, that the Respondent order any parts immediately as in light of what the dealer had advised regarding the claim - “it was only going to be a question of who pays”.

30. This same day the Applicant also advised the Respondent that “we were living in a caravan park some 4 days drive from home, and there was now after several weeks a sense of urgency to return to work.

31. On 5 August 2022, the Applicant called the Respondent and was advised that the engine head had been removed, and it appeared to be the fault known by the Principals service bulletin. This call was recorded by the Applicant.

32. Annexed hereto and marked “20220805 Call Transcript” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

33. During this call the Respondent advised that the “head was removed yesterday, and there is a hole in the piston (as expected), the block has been ordered, and the head would eb sent away.”

34. During this call the Respondent commits to “a further two to three weeks”

35. On the 8 August 2022, the Applicant made the decision to store the Camper in Tully as he has to go back to Brisbane to work. A train was caught that same day to Brisbane for he and is partner.

36. The train trip was a 20 hour overnight trip, at a total cost of $400.

37. On the 12 August 2022, (at this point the Dealer had had the vehicle a total of 27 days), an email was sent to parts@bartrac.com.au requesting any progress update.

38. No reply was received

39. On the 16 August 2022, the Applicant called the Dealer and left a message with reception to call back as the Respondent was busy at the time.

40. No reply was received

41. Annexed hereto and marked “20220816 Call Transcript” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

42. On the 19 August 2022, the Dealers Receptionist called to request Service History information, no other update could be provided.

That same day the Applicant emailed a full service history and ownership details for the vehicle to parts@bartrac.com.au and requested confirmation of receipt.

Confirmation of receipt was received.

43. On the 23 August 2022, it was later advised (refer point 44) – the Report had been submitted to the Principal.

44. On the 25 August 2022, The Applicant called the Respondent and was advised;

a. “There is no update on the report”, 

b. “we will know today or tomorrow”, 

c. “injectors have been checked and are fine”,

d. ”the head is in Cairns”,

e. ”the block has been backordered”, and

f. ”this should not be a problem”

45. Annexed hereto and marked “20220825 Call Transcript” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

46. As at the 29 August 2022, no update had been provided by the Respondent despite point 44(b) above. The Applicant called the Respondent. A commitment to email the Applicant was made to the Respondent for the following day being 30 August 2022.

47. No reply was received.

48. The applicant emailed parts (Kara parts@bartrac.com.au) for an update. 

49. No reply was received.

50. On the 6 September 2022, the Applicant called the respondent and insisted that “I need costs to approve the work”, “please send via email”.

51. The Respondent replied that they would not reply via email in case “I hold them to the costs”.

52. Annexed hereto and marked “20220906 call” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

53. As at COB 6 September 2022. The Vehicle had been at the Respondents premise for on or about 54 days. 

No quote or estimate of any sort had been received by the Applicant at this point.

54. On the 7 September, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent and copied it to the Toyota Guest Experience (Complaints) department as a form of escalation.

55. Annexed hereto and marked “20220907 email” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

56. An automated email back subjected was received “Automated message back Case Number: 2022-768915 Toyota Guest Experience Centre” The reply also indicated “We appreciate your contact and endeavour to respond within 2-3 business days”.

57. After 3 business days no reply had be received.

58. On the 13 September 2022, the very first email was received from the Respondent.

This being 5 days from point 56 above.

59. The content of this reply contained a quote and some photos of engine parts. It also contained some  suggestions as to extra parts that may need replacing. 

It also detailed Toyotas contribution as a result of the Piston Fault.

60. Annexed hereto and marked “20220913 quote” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

61. The Applicant was unable to make sense of the quote as it contains ambiguous information such as;

a. “This quote is subject to additional costs as the work is not yet completed”

b. Of the $6,906.95 (Parts) Toyota contribute $7,537.47 (??)

c. No timeframe what so ever and ;

d. other such queries.

62. On 13 September the Applicant emailed the Respondent with a list of questions about clarifying the quote.

63. Annexed hereto and marked “20220913 email” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

64. No reply was received

65. On the 16 September the Applicant wrote and requested a reply to the email of 13 September 2022.

66. No reply was received.

67. On the 20 September 2022, having again had no reply, the Applicant again wrote to the Respondent this time copying the Guest Experience (Complaints team).

68. On the 20 September 2022, (Later that same day) a reply was received from the Respondent. Answering only very few of the questions, and estimating a completion date dated “07/09/2022”.

69. On the 20 September 2022, the Applicant replied to clarify the completion date as it appeared in the past, and also the nature of the estimate as the Applicant would need to prebook flights to retrieve the vehicle. 

70. At this time there was approx. a one month waiting time for bookings on flights and also Train services. It is noted that the trip is a 3-4 day drive from the Applicants home.

71. Annexed hereto and marked “20220920 email” is a true and correct transcript of evidence supporting said affirmation.

 

72. As at 20 September the statement of facts are as follows;

a. The vehicle has been located at the Respondents workshop for 66 days.

b. Until day 52 the Respondent refused to quote the work

c. No form of estimate was provided until on or about day 59. 

d. An estimate quote had been provided, however the Applicant does not have clarity on figures

e. A date for completion (and then only an estimate) was only provided until day 66, this date would be day 88 (7/10/2022).

f. An estimated date for completion has been provided, however the Respondent will not commit to a fixed date for the work despite the Applicant needing such to secure flights.

73. A summary of costs incurred by the Applicant as a result of the lack of communication are detailed below.

Detail below…

Accommodation

Rental Car

Uber

Other