Key to colour codes:

Original defendants questions are in Red.

Original examiners answers are in purple.

Defendants new questions are in black

 

B1. DEFENDANTS QUESTIONS

 

177. General CRA 2015 Issues (a) On the balance of probabilities, was the Vehicle at the point of delivery of satisfactory quality, as defined under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015? 

 

178. The examiner is of the opinion from the findings of this report that the vehicle at the point of delivery was of satisfactory quality, as defined under section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

You have stated in your report that, in your opinion, the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of delivery as defined under Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

However, there is conclusive evidence that at the point of delivery:

• the air-conditioning system was already leaking refrigerant;

• the door locking mechanism was beginning to fail;

• the vehicle subsequently required over £15,000 worth of warranty repairs to multiple systems; and

• the supplying dealer’s business manager, Mr. Thomas Koutsavakis confirmed that “the vehicle would never be fixed.”

• Cheshire Oaks Audi (Mr. Stephen Fisher and Mr. Matt Whittaker) tried to find me a replacement vehicle.

In light of this evidence, please explain:
(a) On what basis you have concluded that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of delivery; and
(b) How you reconcile that conclusion with the presence of pre-existing defects and the extensive subsequent warranty repairs.

(b) Fit the purpose. In your professional opinion, was the Vehicle fit for the Defendant’s known purpose of professional chauffeur use, as required under section 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015? In answering, please take into account the repair history, reliability issues, and the nature and frequency of the reported faults (including the catastrophic rear-wheel steering failure). 

 

179.The examiner has considered the above statement to have a typing error and that the Defendant is referring to ‘Fit For Purpose’ under Section 10 of the CRA. The examiner will therefore answer the question on a ‘Fit for Purpose’ basis. The examiner is of the opinion that the average UK mileage for vehicles from a recent survey is 7,400 miles per year. Clearly the vehicle is being used for business purposes and with the vehicle having covered some 36,553 miles in 258 days, a significantly increased number of repairs would be expected. The examiner is therefore of the opinion from the findings of this report that with the first identified concerns being reported at 36,553 miles, the vehicle would have been Fit for Purpose under Section 10 of the CRA.

You have stated that in your professional opinion, the vehicle was “Fit for Purpose” under Section 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, on the basis that the first concerns were reported at 36,553 miles, and that this mileage was significantly higher than the national average of 7,400 miles per year.

However, your reasoning appears fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

1. The statutory test under Section 10 relates to whether the goods were fit for the specific purpose made known to the seller at the point of sale, in this case for professional chauffeur use, and not whether the vehicle was driven above the national average mileage.

2. The frequency or distance of use is irrelevant to whether the vehicle was inherently defective or unreliable. A professionally maintained executive vehicle costing over £100,000 should be capable of high-mileage commercial use without repeated system failures.

3. The vehicle suffered numerous significant faults within its first year of ownership, including air-conditioning failure, and central locking malfunction, multiple minor faults and rattles all of which rendered the vehicle unfit for its intended professional use.

4. Your conclusion appears to ignore the cumulative repair history, extensive downtime, and repeated warranty interventions exceeding £15,000, which clearly demonstrate that the vehicle was not fit for its known purpose as a reliable chauffeur vehicle.

Please therefore explain:

(a) On what factual or technical basis you concluded that a flagship prestige vehicle experiencing multiple major faults within its first year of use was nevertheless “fit for purpose” under Section 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015,
(b) Why you believe that mileage comparisons with national averages are relevant to the statutory test of fitness for purpose,
(c) How you define “a significantly increased number of repairs” and on what evidence or statistical data this expectation is based,
(d) Whether you can identify any engineering mechanism by which high mileage could cause an internal air-conditioning evaporator, located behind the dashboard, to fail prematurely,
(e) Whether you accept that mileage or usage has no causal connection to the failure of the vehicle’s central locking system, which is electronic and not a wear-dependent component, and
(f) Whether you agree that, absent technical evidence showing causation between mileage and these failures, your statement that “a significantly increased number of repairs would be expected” is speculative and without evidential foundation.

 

 

 

 

 

180. Faults, Repairs and Durability (c) Were the reported faults (central locking, air-conditioning) likely to have been present, developing, or inherent at delivery, rather than arising from wear and tear or poor maintenance? 

 

181.The examiner is of the opinion that the reported faults (central locking, air-conditioning) were not likely to have been present, developing, or inherent at delivery, and have arisen from wear and tear.

You have stated that, in your opinion, the reported faults (central locking and air-conditioning) were not likely to have been present, developing, or inherent at the time of delivery, and that they arose from wear and tear.

This opinion appears wholly inconsistent with the documented and technical evidence provided. You were supplied with a detailed timeline showing:

• the date the vehicle was delivered into the United Kingdom,

• the date the Defendant took delivery of the vehicle,

• the date the air-conditioning first failed and lost refrigerant,

• the date the system was first re-gassed, and

• the date the vehicle was stripped to replace the faulty evaporator.

This timeline clearly demonstrates that the air-conditioning fault was inherent from the outset and existed long before the first re-gas attempt. It is therefore unreasonable to attribute this failure to wear and tear, particularly given the short period between delivery and the initial refrigerant loss.

In addition, the central locking issue was first reported to Cheshire Oaks Audi only three weeks after delivery and required multiple visits to the workshop. Over £2,000 was spent under warranty attempting to rectify the system, yet the fault persisted and I was ultimately informed by the business manager that “it would never be fixed.” It is therefore difficult to understand how you can conclude that this defect was not present or developing at the point of delivery.

Furthermore, “wear and tear” is specifically excluded from Audi’s manufacturer warranty, meaning that any repair authorised and carried out under warranty could not, by definition, have been classified as wear and tear. All relevant warranty repair invoices and documentation were provided to you in evidence, yet your report appears to have disregarded them entirely or failed to take them into account. 

Audi’s own warranty invoices confirm that the air-conditioning repairs alone cost over £4,000, which unequivocally demonstrates that the issue could not have been caused by wear and tear. A manufacturer would not authorise or absorb such a high warranty cost if the fault were usage-related or maintenance-related. This reinforces that the defect was inherent in manufacture or design and existed from the point of delivery.

It is also a well-established mechanical principle that regular use of an air-conditioning system helps to maintain its integrity, since the refrigerant contains lubricants that keep internal seals and components in good condition. Accordingly, higher mileage or regular operation would normally reduce, not increase, the likelihood of refrigerant leaks.

Please therefore explain:
(a) How you can reasonably maintain that the air-conditioning fault was not inherent at the point of delivery when the documented timeline provided to you clearly shows the following:
• 9 January 2019 – Vehicle enters the country
• 1 March 2019 – Vehicle handed over to the Defendant
• September 2019 – First air-conditioning failure and total refrigerant loss
• 19 October 2019 – System re-gassed under warranty
• 3 July 2020 – Air-conditioning failure recurs; Audi identifies evaporator leak

This evidence clearly demonstrates that the time interval between delivery and the first air-conditioning failure, and between the initial re-gas and the subsequent system failure, are virtually identical. This pattern confirms a consistent and inherent refrigerant leak that was present from the outset. The repetition of the same fault within such a short timeframe is wholly inconsistent with normal wear and tear and is characteristic of a latent manufacturing defect. Even a layperson could recognise this as a recurring built-in fault. Please therefore explain, with reference to specific technical data or evidence, how you dispute these facts and on what evidential or mechanical basis you maintain that the air-conditioning defect was not inherent at delivery, despite the clear chronological documentation provided to simplify your understanding of the fault sequence.

 

 

(b) Why you disregarded or failed to reference the supplied repair invoices and warranty documentation,
(c) On what technical basis you consider the early failure of both the air-conditioning and central locking systems to be consistent with “wear and tear” when such failures were repaired under Audi warranty (which excludes wear and tear), and
(d) Why you believe that increased mileage or regular use would cause an air-conditioning system to leak when it is mechanically accepted that regular operation helps lubricate seals and prevents such failures.

(d) Does the record of repairs and downtime (exceeding £15,000 in costs) indicate an inherent defect inconsistent with satisfactory quality. 

 

182.The examiner is of the opinion that the record of repairs and downtime (exceeding £15,000 in costs) do not indicate an inherent defect consistent with satisfactory quality.

 

You have stated that, in your opinion, the record of repairs and downtime exceeding £15,000 does not indicate an inherent defect inconsistent with satisfactory quality.

This conclusion appears entirely unsupported by the evidence and contrary to both technical logic and the statutory framework under Section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The repair record demonstrates multiple major component failures across several independent vehicle systems — none of which could reasonably be attributed to normal wear or user maintenance.

Please explain, in detail, how you have reached this conclusion, given that:

(a) The documented repair history shows repeated and serious failures affecting critical systems including the air-conditioning, central locking, front steering rack, and rear-wheel steering, all occurring within a short period of ownership.
(b) The vehicle was maintained strictly in accordance with manufacturer service schedules and operated by a professional chauffeur business where maintenance standards are typically higher than private use.
(c) The cumulative warranty repair costs exceeded £15,000 — an amount that, by any objective standard, is inconsistent with the performance and reliability a reasonable consumer would expect from a £105,000 flagship luxury vehicle of this class, age, and mileage.
(d) The frequency and scale of the repairs demonstrate systemic reliability and durability issues that fall well below the threshold of satisfactory quality under Section 9 CRA 2015.
(e) Each of the repairs was authorised and carried out under Audi’s manufacturer warranty. Since wear and tear items are expressly excluded from warranty coverage, the very fact that these works were completed under warranty confirms that they were not attributable to wear, neglect, or misuse, but to inherent or latent defects in manufacture or design.

 

 

Please therefore clarify:

1. On what technical or evidential basis you conclude that such a repair record does not demonstrate inherent defect;

2. Whether you accept that a high-value luxury vehicle requiring over £15,000 in warranty repairs within its early lifecycle cannot reasonably be considered of “satisfactory quality” or “fit for purpose” as those terms are defined under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; and

3. Whether, in light of these facts, you are prepared to qualify or amend your conclusion accordingly.

(e) Is the level of reliability and durability consistent with what a reasonable consumer would expect of a premium vehicle of this description, age, mileage, and price? 

 

183.The examiner has considered that with the significantly high mileage the vehicle has covered the level of reliability and durability could be considered consistent with what a reasonable consumer would expect of a premium vehicle of this description, age, mileage, and price.

 

You have stated that, in your opinion, the vehicle’s level of reliability and durability could be considered consistent with what a reasonable consumer would expect of a premium vehicle of this description, age, mileage, and price.

This opinion is plainly inconsistent with the evidence before you and appears to lack any credible technical or logical foundation.

The documented record shows that within the first year of ownership, the vehicle experienced:
• multiple major mechanical and electrical failures,
• repeated downtime resulting in over £15,000 in warranty repairs,
• serious defects affecting core systems including air-conditioning, central locking, the front steering rack, and rear-wheel steering,
• confirmation from the supplying dealer’s business manager that “the vehicle would never be fixed,” and
• that every major repair was carried out under Audi manufacturer warranty, which expressly excludes wear and tear.

Taken together, this evidence establishes a clear pattern of inherent defect, unreliability, and substandard durability wholly inconsistent with the expectations of a reasonable purchaser of a £105,000 flagship vehicle.

Please therefore explain:
(a) On what technical or evidential basis you maintain that the vehicle’s reliability and durability were consistent with what a reasonable consumer would expect, given the scale, cost, and frequency of the failures recorded.
(b) Whether you accept that repeated system failures of this magnitude within such a short period are fundamentally inconsistent with “satisfactory quality” and “fitness for purpose” as defined under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
(c) Why you continue to rely upon the vehicle’s mileage to justify premature system failures, when high-mileage professional operation was the very purpose for which the vehicle was purchased.
(d) Whether, in light of the overwhelming evidence of unreliability and repeated warranty intervention, you are prepared to qualify or revise your opinion to reflect that the vehicle did not meet the reasonable expectations of quality, reliability, or durability for a premium vehicle of this description, age, and value.

184. Air Conditioning and Refrigerant (f) Please confirm the type of refrigerant gas used in the air conditioning system of the 2019 Audi A8L subject to this dispute. 

 

185. This particular vehicle uses a R-1234yf refrigerant gas.

 

(g) In your professional opinion, could prolonged exposure to refrigerant gases such as R-1234yf within a confined vehicle cabin over a period of 12 months present potential health risks to the occupants? In answering, please address both the refrigerant itself and any potential byproducts that may be generated (including but not limited to hydrogen fluoride or carbonyl compounds). 

 

186. The examiner is of the opinion that prolonged exposure to R-1234yf refrigerant gas within a confined vehicle cabin over a 12 month period could present health risks, including respiratory irritation, asphyxiation, and potential long-term damage to organs like the brain, liver, and heart. However with this vehicle holding a capacity of approximately 530 ±20 grams, for a vehicle do deplete this volume over a 12 month period it would be highly unlikely to cause direct harm to vehicle occupants, as it would disperse and not reach dangerous concentration levels. However the examiner would point out that chemical engineering is not the examiners area of expertise. 

You have stated that prolonged exposure to R-1234yf refrigerant gas within a confined vehicle cabin over a 12-month period could present health risks, including respiratory irritation, asphyxiation, and potential long-term organ damage. You then assert that, because the vehicle’s system held approximately 530 ± 20 grams of refrigerant, it would be “highly unlikely to cause direct harm” to occupants, as the gas would disperse and not reach dangerous concentration levels.

This reasoning is factually and technically flawed for several key reasons:

1. Incorrect refrigerant capacity
   The figure of 530 ± 20 grams quoted in your report is inaccurate. Audi manufacturer data confirms that an A8 L equipped with four-zone climate control holds approximately 750 ± 20 grams of R-1234yf refrigerant. The system in this vehicle leaked and was re-gassed twice within its first year, equating to a total loss of around 1,500 grams, almost three times greater than the figure you relied upon.

2. Cabin sealing and dispersion
   The Audi A8 is not a typical saloon. It is a flagship executive vehicle designed for exceptional acoustic isolation and pressure integrity. Its cabin employs multi-layer acoustic glass, triple door seals, and precision-engineered body tolerances that create a near-hermetic environment. Such design minimises air exchange and causes any gases present within the cabin to disperse more slowly than in ordinary vehicles. Consequently, leaked refrigerant would remain in the interior air for longer periods and at higher concentrations, increasing potential health risk.

3. Health implications
   You have already acknowledged that R-1234yf exposure can cause respiratory irritation, asphyxiation, and long-term organ damage. In a tightly sealed vehicle such as the A8 L, even low-volume leaks could therefore constitute a material health hazard to the driver and passengers, particularly when the vehicle is used for long-duration chauffeur operations.

4. Lack of relevant qualifications
   You state that “chemical engineering is not the examiner’s area of expertise.” In light of that admission, it is unclear on what technical foundation you concluded that leaked gas would disperse harmlessly or fail to reach harmful concentrations, especially given the physical characteristics of the A8 cabin.

Please therefore formally confirm:
(a) What formal qualifications, certifications, or accreditations you hold relating specifically to motor-vehicle air-conditioning systems, refrigerant gases, or HVAC engineering.
(b) Whether you hold, or have ever held, F-Gas certification (Category I or equivalent) authorising you to handle and assess refrigerant systems under the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations.
(c) Whether you have received any manufacturer-approved or IMI-accredited training specific to Audi or Volkswagen Group air-conditioning systems.
(d) The extent of your professional experience diagnosing, repairing, or inspecting modern automotive HVAC systems using R-1234yf refrigerant.
(e) Whether you consider yourself competent to provide expert evidence on air-conditioning systems when your report shows you do not appear to understand that such systems require regular use to circulate lubricants and prevent premature internal-seal failure.
(f) Whether you accept that, given the A8’s highly sealed cabin design, the greater-than-stated refrigerant capacity, and your own acknowledgement of toxicity risk, the vehicle could have exposed occupants to harmful gas concentrations, rendering it unsafe, unsatisfactory, and unfit for purpose under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.                    (g) In your expert opinion, is an air-conditioning leak more likely to occur in the condenser located at the front of the vehicle, an area vulnerable to stone chips and road debris, particularly on high-mileage cars, or in the evaporator situated inside the cabin behind the dashboard? Please clarify which of these would typically constitute normal wear and tear, and which would indicate a manufacturing or design defect. If the leak had occurred in the condenser, this would not have been covered under Audi’s warranty because external damage is classed as wear and tear, similar to a chipped windscreen, worn brake pads, or tyre wear. The fact that the evaporator replacement was authorised and carried out under warranty therefore confirms that the failure was inherent and not attributable to wear and tear.                                                                                                                                                  (h) I was specifically informed by the Audi technician who first investigated the refrigerant loss that, if the leak were found to originate from the condenser, the repair would not be covered under warranty as this would constitute wear and tear and would be at my own cost. Do you agree with the mechanic’s statement?                                                                                   (i) In your expert opinion, what is the probability of an evaporator failure occurring within the first year of use in a flagship vehicle of this class? Please indicate whether you consider such a failure to be expected, normal, or extremely rare. If your conclusion is that it is not extremely rare, please provide the data, manufacturer information, or industry evidence on which that opinion is based.                                                                                                                                     (j) You have accepted that prolonged exposure to R-1234yf can present health risks, including respiratory irritation, asphyxiation, and potential long-term organ damage. Do you therefore accept that:
 (i) any vehicle capable of exposing occupants to a toxic or harmful gas cannot reasonably be regarded as safe, satisfactory, or fit for purpose;
 (ii) such a condition constitutes an inherent defect in design or manufacture;
 (iii) the vehicle’s air-conditioning system, as supplied, failed to meet basic safety and reliability standards; and
 (iv) the combination of an airtight cabin and repeated refrigerant loss rendered the vehicle non-compliant with the durability, safety, and quality requirements imposed by Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.                                                                                (h) Would you agree that a refrigerant leak originating from the evaporator located within the enclosed cabin presents a significantly greater potential danger to occupants than a leak from the condenser situated at the front of the vehicle, given that any escaping refrigerant or byproducts from an internal leak would be released directly into the passenger compartment rather than dissipating safely into the external atmosphere?

(h) Based on the documents disclosed, do you consider that the air conditioning

faults and associated refrigerant leaks were more likely than not to have been

present from the point of sale, or did they arise later in the vehicle’s lifecycle?

 

188. .The examiner has not been furnished with suitable documentation or images of the

refrigerant components that that were replaced to consider this question fully. However in

an attempt to assist the Court, the examiner would consider from the information

provided that the air conditioning concern was not present at the point of sale and has

arisen later in the vehicles lifecycle.

You have stated that you were not furnished with suitable documentation or images of the refrigerant components that were replaced, and therefore could not consider this question fully. You then speculated that, based on the limited information available, the air-conditioning fault was not present at the point of sale and arose later in the vehicle’s lifecycle.

This assertion is entirely inconsistent with the documented evidence that was provided to you. You were supplied with:
• A complete timeline showing the vehicle’s delivery, first reported loss of refrigerant, and the subsequent re-gas attempt within months of purchase.
• Audi warranty invoices confirming that the air-conditioning system was re-gassed in November 2019 following a reported failure in September 2019, less than six months after delivery.
• Further documentation confirming that the entire evaporator was replaced under warranty by July 2020, following a full interior strip-down of the vehicle.
• Photographic evidence showing the dismantling process and component replacement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These records clearly demonstrate that the system had been leaking refrigerant from the outset and that the same fault recurred after the initial temporary repair—proving the defect was inherent and not the result of age, use, or wear and tear. The fact that both repairs were authorised and carried out under Audi manufacturer warranty—which expressly excludes wear and tear—further confirms that this was a latent manufacturing defect.

Please therefore explain:
(a) Why your report states that you were not furnished with suitable documentation when comprehensive warranty records, photographs, and timelines were in fact provided;
(b) Whether you personally reviewed those documents before forming your conclusion, and if not, why;
(c) On what technical or evidential basis you maintain that the defect arose later in the vehicle’s lifecycle, when the first refrigerant loss and re-gas occurred within months of delivery;
(d) How you reconcile your opinion with the repeated pattern of identical failure within a short timeframe, which demonstrates a persistent inherent leak; and
(e) Whether you accept that your failure to review, acknowledge, or accurately interpret the evidence supplied renders your opinion on this issue unreliable and incapable of assisting the Court.

 

1. Do you consider that repeated failures of the air conditioning system within the first year of ownership are consistent with a manufacturing or design defect, as opposed to normal wear and tear?

 

189.The examiner has not been furnished with suitable documentation to suggest that the vehicle has had repeated failures of the air conditioning system. The job cards provided confirms that the vehicle had an initial re-charge for low pressure, and an evaporator replaced as being a failed component. This is one repair. The examiner would consider with the vehicle mileage being 36,553 miles at this time this would be considered wear and tear and not a manufacturing or design defect.

You have stated that you were not furnished with suitable documentation or images of the refrigerant components that were replaced, and therefore could not consider the question fully. You then went on to suggest that, based on the limited information available, you believe the air-conditioning concern was not present at the point of sale and arose later in the vehicle’s lifecycle.

This assertion is demonstrably incorrect and materially misleading. You were provided with extensive documentary and photographic evidence, including:

• A detailed chronological timeline showing the vehicle’s importation date, delivery to the Defendant, the initial failure of the air-conditioning system, and the subsequent re-gassing attempts.
• Audi warranty documentation confirming that the air-conditioning system was re-gassed on 13 November 2019, following a reported failure in September 2019—barely six months after delivery. Any reasonable engineer would recognise that a total loss of refrigerant within such a short period indicates an inherent manufacturing defect.
• A subsequent warranty invoice confirming that the evaporator was replaced under warranty on 29 July 2020, a repair requiring full interior disassembly.
• Photographic evidence of the evaporator replacement and interior dismantling, supplied alongside your instructions.

Despite this comprehensive evidence, your report falsely states that you were not provided with suitable documentation. That statement is wholly at odds with the material actually disclosed and undermines confidence in your diligence and objectivity. The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the refrigerant leak existed from the outset and was inherent at, or before, the point of delivery.

Please therefore explain:

(a) Why your report claims that you were not furnished with suitable documentation when detailed warranty records, photographs, and a timeline were in fact supplied to you in full.
(b) Whether you reviewed those materials at all, and if not, why you failed to comply with your expert duty to consider all relevant evidence.
(c) On what technical or evidential basis you concluded that the air-conditioning concern arose later in the vehicle’s lifecycle when the first total refrigerant loss and re-gas occurred within months of delivery.
(d) How you justify dismissing or ignoring clear, contemporaneous warranty documentation and manufacturer repair records which directly contradict your conclusion.
(e) Whether you accept that your failure to review or reference the disclosed evidence renders your opinion on this issue unreliable and unsafe for the Court to rely upon.
(f) Whether you acknowledge that your omission of such central, material evidence amounts to a breach of your overriding duty under CPR 35.3, which requires an expert to provide independent, objective opinion evidence based on all the material facts made available.

The omission of this key documentation, coupled with the inaccurate statement that it was not provided, raises serious questions as to the adequacy of your review, the reliability of your methodology, and ultimately, your credibility as an expert witness.

 

190. Rear-Wheel Steering Safety (j) In your professional opinion, would a sudden failure of the rear-wheel steering system at approximately 40 miles per hour constitute a serious safety incident? Please explain the likely affect of such a failure on the vehicle’s handling, stability and risk to occupants or other road users. 

191. The examiner is of the opinion that it would be dependant on what the sudden failure of the rear-wheel steering system at approximately 40 miles per hour constituted. The examiner has not identified any documentation in the bundle of documentation or the website that highlights a situation at approximately 40 mph to comment upon.

You have stated that it would “depend on what the sudden failure of the rear-wheel steering system at approximately 40 miles per hour constituted” and that you had “not identified any documentation or evidence in the materials provided” to comment upon such an incident.

This statement is inaccurate and demonstrably false. You were expressly directed to review my dedicated evidence website, which you confirmed in your report that you had done “in its entirety.” That site clearly documents this event under the heading “Catastrophic Incident – How My Audi Tried to Kill Me.”

The description, accompanying video, and contemporaneous notes show that while travelling on a dual carriageway at approximately 40 mph, the vehicle’s rear-wheel steering system suddenly and violently snapped to the left at the precise moment the central reservation ended. The vehicle lurched sharply into the opposing lane, and only through immediate corrective steering and extensive professional driving experience was a head-on collision avoided.

Had you reviewed the material as instructed, you would have seen that:
• The rear-wheel steering abruptly reached its maximum deflection of approximately 5 degrees, a range that should only occur below 25 mph.
• At speeds above that threshold, Audi’s Dynamic All-Wheel Steering (DAWS) system operates in-phase with the front steering input, with rear-wheel movement limited to no more than 1 degree in the same direction as the front, to improve stability and safety.
• The behaviour described is therefore not a normal transient event but a catastrophic system malfunction inconsistent with any safe or intended operation.

Your failure to identify, review, or even acknowledge this critical incident raises serious concerns about the adequacy of your evidence review and your technical understanding of this safety-critical system.

Please therefore explain:
(a) Why you claimed there was “no documentation” referring to this incident when it was explicitly presented and referenced in the materials provided to you.
(b) Whether you reviewed the website description, accompanying video, and related documentation as instructed, and if not, why not.
(c) Whether you accept that a sudden 5-degree rear-steer movement at approximately 40 mph would cause severe instability and loss of control.
(d) Whether you agree that such a failure constitutes a serious and potentially life-threatening defect, exposing the driver, passengers, and other road users to unacceptable risk.
(e) On what technical or evidential basis you can maintain that a vehicle exhibiting such behaviour was of “satisfactory quality” or “fit for purpose” under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
(f) Whether you accept that the occurrence of such a fault fundamentally undermines your earlier conclusion that the vehicle was safe, reliable, and fit for professional use.

Expert Competence – Dynamic Rear-Wheel Steering Systems

Your report also demonstrates a limited understanding of the principles governing Audi’s Dynamic All-Wheel Steering (DAWS) system. It appears you are unaware that:
• Rear-wheel deflection is electronically restricted to approximately 5 degrees below 25 mph, and to about 1 degree above 25 mph, operating in the same direction as the front wheels to enhance high-speed stability; and
• Any deviation beyond these limits represents a control or sensor fault that could result in catastrophic loss of stability.

Please therefore confirm:
(a) What formal training, technical certifications, or manufacturer accreditations you hold relating specifically to electronic or dynamic rear-wheel steering systems.
(b) Whether you have any direct professional experience diagnosing, repairing, or calibrating Audi’s DAWS system, or equivalent systems used by other luxury marques such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, or Lexus.
(c) Whether you have ever received manufacturer service data, diagnostic guidance, or safety logic documentation from Audi UK, Volkswagen Group, or any comparable OEM relating to rear-steering modules, alignment control, or fail-safe operation.
(d) Whether you regard yourself as competent to express expert opinion on the causes and safety implications of rear-steering system malfunctions, particularly those involving electronic control and sensor integration.
(e) If you do not hold relevant training or manufacturer accreditation, please explain on what basis you considered yourself qualified to express opinions on this advanced system’s performance, behaviour, and safety in the context of the catastrophic incident clearly documented in the evidence.

Your omission of this critical evidence, combined with your apparent lack of specialist qualifications in advanced dynamic steering systems, undermines both the technical reliability of your opinion and your credibility as an expert witness. It also calls into question whether you have complied with your overriding duty under CPR 35.3 to provide the court with independent, objective, and fully informed opinion evidence based on all material facts.

Rear-Wheel Steering Safety – Hypothetical Failure at Motorway Speeds

(k) Please explain what the likely outcomes would be if the rear-wheel steering system were to fail suddenly at motorway speeds. In your opinion, how would such a failure affect the vehicle’s stability, handling, and overall safety, and what risks would this pose to the driver, passengers and other road users? 

192. The examiner is of the opinion that it would be dependent on what the sudden failure of the rear-wheel steering system at motorway speeds constituted. The examiner has not identified any documentation in the bundle of documentation or the website that highlights a situation at motorway speeds to support what the failure was.

You have stated that it would depend on what the sudden failure of the rear-wheel steering system at motorway speeds constituted, and that you found no documentation in the evidence bundle or on the website referring to such an event.
This response demonstrates that you did not fully review the evidence provided. My website clearly documents a catastrophic steering failure at approximately 40 mph, in which the rear-wheel steering suddenly and violently snapped to the left, causing the vehicle to lurch into the path of oncoming traffic. Only through immediate corrective input and professional driving experience was a head-on collision avoided.

It is accepted that there is no evidence of a motorway-speed failure; however, this question is hypothetical and seeks your professional opinion on the likely consequences of such an event. As you should be aware, Audi’s Dynamic All-Wheel Steering (DAWS) system is electronically restricted to approximately 5° of rear-wheel movement below 25 mph, and to around 1° in the same direction as the front wheels above that speed to maintain stability.
Therefore, if the system were to experience a full-angle deviation at motorway speed, even as little as 5°, this would equate to a sudden and extreme lateral displacement capable of instantly destabilising the vehicle, resulting in an almost immediate loss of control.

At motorway velocity, such a failure would be catastrophic. The vehicle would experience a violent yaw moment—forcing it sharply off-line—likely causing total loss of directional stability within fractions of a second. The driver would have no realistic opportunity to counter-steer before the vehicle crossed lanes or left the carriageway. The probability of collision, rollover, or secondary impact would be exceptionally high, posing fatal risk to both occupants and other road users.

When this incident was reported to Audi, they initially indicated that the entire rear-wheel steering assembly would be replaced. However, following extended downtime, only a single magnet component was changed. No warranty invoice was ever provided for this repair, despite other invoices existing for separate faults. This strongly suggests that the fault may have been only partially addressed or temporarily cleared from the system using diagnostics rather than being properly repaired.

Please therefore explain:
(a) Why you stated there was no documentation or evidence when the incident and its details were clearly set out on the website provided to you;
(b) Whether you confirm that you reviewed and considered that evidence before forming your opinion;
(c) Based on your expertise, what you believe would occur if the rear-wheel steering system were to fail suddenly at motorway speeds, particularly in terms of stability, handling, and safety;
(d) Whether you agree that a sudden full-angle steering deviation, even of approximately 5°, at motorway speed would render the vehicle uncontrollable to almost any driver, regardless of experience;
(e) Whether you accept that such a failure constitutes a serious and potentially fatal safety defect, inconsistent with satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015; and
(f) Why you have not commented on or sought to verify the nature of the subsequent repairs to the rear-steering system, including the lack of supporting warranty documentation and the likelihood that only a partial or temporary repair was performed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(l) Diagnostic Equipment, Testing Procedure, and Central Locking Safety

Please confirm what diagnostic equipment was used during your inspection of the vehicle. Bearing in mind that the vehicle battery was no longer functional at the time, please also confirm what external power source was used to enable diagnostic checks.

194. The examiner used an Autel MS906 Diagnostic device during the testing of the vehicle. 195.The examiner used a fully charged 12v lead acid battery with a capacity of 95Ah.

You have acknowledged that the vehicle recorded significant electronic faults and that you identified a fault in the nearside rear soft-close mechanism. However, your report makes no reference to the more serious central locking defect that rendered the vehicle unpredictable and unsafe, despite clear video and documentary evidence being provided.

The evidence supplied to you shows that the vehicle’s fly-by-wire central locking system intermittently failed, leaving the doors completely inoperative and trapping occupants inside the cabin. This occurred on several occasions, both with and without the keys present. The vehicle’s design includes no mechanical emergency override, meaning the doors cannot be opened manually when such a failure occurs.

This defect represents a serious safety hazard, particularly in the event of fire, collision, or electrical failure, when occupants must be able to exit the vehicle immediately. The issue was present from the point of delivery, repeatedly reported, and remained unresolved despite multiple warranty repairs exceeding £2,000.

Please therefore explain:
(a) Why your report fails to address or acknowledge the central locking entrapment issue, despite clear video and documentary evidence being supplied. An example can be found at https://www.killeraudi.com/list-of-events (entry dated 19 January 2022).
(b) Whether you accept that a locking system capable of trapping occupants inside a vehicle constitutes a serious and potentially life-threatening safety defect.
(c) Whether you agree that the absence of a mechanical override represents a fundamental design flaw inconsistent with satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
(d) On what technical basis you have concluded that such a system failure does not compromise occupant safety.
(e) Whether you accept that the repeated inability to unlock the vehicle, combined with the risk of occupants being trapped, clearly demonstrates that the vehicle was unsafe, defective, and unfit for purpose from the point of delivery.
(f) Do you agree that the Autel MS906 diagnostic system you used is not equivalent to VCDS (VAG-COM Diagnostic System) or ODIS (Offboard Diagnostic Information System), and is in fact a generic aftermarket diagnostic tool which is not manufacturer-specific and does not provide full access to Audi’s proprietary control modules, coding functions, or guided fault-finding procedures?

 

196.The examiner has included the data print outs in the appendices of this report.

 

 

197. Evidence Review 

 

(n) Please confirm that you have fully reviewed the Defendant’s website https:// www.killeraudi.com in its entirety. This includes all sections containing video, audio, photographs, emails, documents, and receipts. In your report, please explicitly list the sections and categories of evidence you have reviewed, and confirm that you have considered them in forming your opinion. 

 

198.The examiner can confirm that he has fully reviewed the Defendant’s website https:// www.killeraudi.com in its entirety. This includes all sections containing video, audio, photographs, emails, documents, and receipts, and has considered them in forming his opinion.

(m) Evidence Review and Expert Credibility

You assert that you reviewed the Defendant’s website in full, including all video, audio, photographic, email, document, and receipt material, and that you considered this in forming your opinions. However, your answers to multiple earlier questions show that key evidence was not reviewed or not engaged with. For example:
• You stated that you were not furnished with suitable documentation regarding the air-conditioning system, despite the website containing warranty invoices, photographs, and a complete timeline.
• You claimed there was no documentation of the rear-wheel steering incident, despite a detailed written account and media being clearly presented under “Catastrophic Incident – How My Audi Tried to Kill Me.”
• You made no reference to the central locking entrapment evidence, despite dedicated pages with video demonstrations and replication instructions.

These omissions indicate that the assertion of a full review is inaccurate. In addition, your own professional website, https://www.eliteinspections.co.uk, indicates a principal focus on classic and historic vehicles. This raises concern about your experience with modern, electronically integrated luxury platforms such as the Audi A8L, including dynamic rear-steer systems, multi-zone HVAC with R-1234yf, and fly-by-wire locking architectures.

Please therefore explain:
(a) The specific sections, pages, and evidence categories on https://www.killeraudi.com that you reviewed, identified by page title and URL path.
(b) Why your report omits discussion of the air-conditioning invoices and timeline, the rear-steer incident materials, and the central locking entrapment pages, all of which were plainly available.
(c) Whether you accept that your statement claiming to have reviewed the entire website is inaccurate in light of the omissions identified.
(d) Whether you accept that the omission of this material undermines the reliability and weight of your conclusions.
(e) Whether you accept that your principal area of practice, as evidenced by your own website content and case studies, lies in classic and vintage vehicles rather than modern, electronically controlled luxury vehicles, and that this limits your competence to provide reliable expert opinion on the systems at issue in this case.
(f) I expressly instructed you to “list the sections and categories of evidence you have reviewed.” Please explain why you did not comply with that instruction and provide the required schedule now.
(g) Confirm whether your failure to address these materials is because you did not, in fact, fully review the website, and if so, identify what you did review, on what dates, and for how long.

In addition, please provide:
• A schedule of all evidence actually relied upon, with page titles and file names,
• A schedule of material seen but not relied upon, with a brief reason for exclusion,
• The date and time of each website access and the device or browser used,
• Any assumptions made due to gaps in your review, so the Court can assess the completeness of your methodology.

For the avoidance of doubt, CPR 35.3 and PD 35 require an expert to set out the facts and documents relied upon, to engage with material that may detract from the opinion, and to comply with the instructing party’s reasonable directions. Your failure to list the reviewed sections and to address the core items above appears inconsistent with those duties.

Further evidence

199. Additional Defects: Water Ingress, Electrical and Suspension Failures

In your report, you refer to mould on the rear offside seat and door panel. This reminded me of further issues I experienced with the vehicle, including water ingress and electrical faults, which I reported to Matt Whittaker (Cheshire Oaks Audi) by email on 7 December 2021.

Email extract:

Hi Matt,

Is there any sign of the replacement door latch as it has been a few months now, or are you waiting for me to bring the car in for other work or servicing?

Also, when I got the car back, the foot massager no longer locates properly and will need adjusting. I have also noticed quite a lot of water gathering in the rear offside passenger footwell.

The suspension also seems to be dropping quickly when stationary, and the drive system has failed, meaning I have no cruise control, among other functions.

Kind regards,
Darren / Jill Williamson
Wirral Chauffeurs

Please answer the following:
(a) In your expert opinion, would you consider the defects described above, including water ingress, electrical malfunctions, suspension drop, and drive system failure, to be normal or acceptable in a high-value prestige vehicle of this class and price?
(b) Do you agree that the presence of water ingress, electrical instability, and repeated mechanical faults demonstrates that the vehicle suffered from multiple inherent defects inconsistent with satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

200. Correspondence with Supplying Dealership – Audi Cheshire Oaks

You have stated in your report that, in your professional opinion, the vehicle was both of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. However, contemporaneous correspondence between myself and Mr Stephen Fisher, Head of Business at Cheshire Oaks Audi, demonstrates that the dealership, Audi Finance, and Audi UK were all actively discussing a resolution to the ongoing faults, including the possibility of a replacement vehicle, which is fundamentally inconsistent with a car said to be fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.

Email from Darren and Jill Williamson to Stephen Fisher (20 October 2021):

“Since our conversation the vehicle has continued to prove unfit for purpose and following many weeks in your workshop the faults remain.”

“I am shocked and extremely disappointed that you have shown no regard or respect; failing to respond to my letter dated 19th April 2021.”

Reply from Stephen Fisher, Head of Business, Cheshire Oaks Audi (21 October 2021):

“I am sorry that this matter has not been concluded for you. I understand that Audi Finance had made their position clear, and had attempted to contact you directly. Also, that you have been liaising with Matt Whittaker when bringing your vehicle to the Centre in the interim.”

“It is clear from your e-mail that this matter is not resolved. I would like to apologise unreservedly for any lack of action or confirmation on my/our part.”

“It remains our intention to be able to support you in this matter and I am going to take advice from our Group Customer Services team to assist in the next steps to move this forwards towards a conclusion for you.”

This exchange confirms that:
• The Head of Business at the supplying dealership acknowledged the matter remained unresolved long after delivery.
• Audi Finance and Audi UK were involved in discussions to find a resolution.
• A replacement vehicle was discussed but could not be sourced because of the unusually high specification of my vehicle.
• The tone and substance of the correspondence make clear that the car was viewed as problematic, defective, and unreliable, not satisfactory or fit for purpose.

Please therefore explain:
(a) On what basis you can maintain that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose when the dealership’s own Head of Business was working with Audi Finance and Audi UK to find a resolution and even exploring a possible replacement vehicle.
(b) In your expert opinion, would a dealership offer to find a replacement vehicle if it genuinely believed that the customer’s car was of satisfactory quality.
(c) Would a dealership offer to find a replacement vehicle if it believed that the vehicle was fit for its intended purpose.
(d) Would a dealership offer to find a replacement vehicle if it believed the problems were minor or could be repaired under normal warranty procedures.
(e) Would a dealership offer to find a replacement vehicle if it believed the issues were merely wear and tear.
(f) Whether you agree that such steps are wholly inconsistent with a dealership’s belief that a vehicle is satisfactory and fit for purpose.
(g) Whether you have taken into account this contemporaneous evidence showing Audi’s own senior management seeking an unresolved “plan of action” and “conclusion” when forming your opinion.
(h) Whether you accept that this correspondence directly undermines your conclusion that the vehicle met the standards of quality, reliability, and durability expected under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

201. Early Rejection Email and Extent of Defects

The following email, dated 4 November 2020, was sent by Mr Darren Williamson (Wirral Chauffeurs) to Stephen Fisher, Inchcape (Cheshire Oaks Audi), titled “Rejection of car DK19 ZYW.” It details an extensive record of recurring faults, poor workmanship, and the dealership’s failure to remedy serious safety and operational defects despite multiple warranty repairs and prolonged downtime. The message also confirms that the vehicle was deemed unfit for purpose within six months of delivery and that a formal rejection was submitted.

 

From: wirral chauffeurs <wirralchauffeurs@btinternet.com>
Sent: 04 November 2020 10:45
To: Stephen Fisher IR (Cheshire Oaks Audi) <Stephen.Fisher2@inchcape.co.uk>
Subject: Rejection of car DK19 ZYW

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Stephen,

I am writing with regards to my vehicle: Audi A8L, Registration: DK19 ZYW.

I took ownership of this vehicle on 1st March 2019,

The retail price was £105,920

I entered into a financial Agreement (Deposit paid) on 12th Nov 2018.

I am a long term Audi advocate; having owned A8s for the last twelve years. As an Aeronautical Engineer by trade, I have always been impressed with the build quality and engineering that has gone into this flagship vehicle.

My past three A8s have been a pleasure to own and have rarely let me down. The latest A8L that I ordered in March 2018 was cancelled due to a Dealership (Inchcape Chester) error (missing options), which meant after waited for seven months for my chosen car, I had to reorder a new one resulting in a extra four month delay.

Since delivery of this vehicle, several major faults have been identified, all reported to your Dealership (Inchcape Chester). This has caused considerable stress and inconvenience: impeding my business as a professional Chauffeur.

The vehicle was proven to be unfit for purpose within six months of purchase. And has on going problems that are unacceptable. All issues have been recorded with your Dealership, and whilst attempts to remedy the mechanical/electrical problems have been carried out, further damage during the process was caused by your Dealership. This damage was recorded in writing, whereby Inchcape acknowledged and took responsibility.

On 14th November 2019, your Dealership offered £250.00 goodwill. I have not accepted this offer as deem it unsatisfactory given the ongoing problems the vehicle is still experiencing.

Multiple problems still exist. Whilst various problems have been rectified, others have become worse. Serious safety issues still remain; the doors lock without warning, a delay in throttle response is evident, and I am aware of a clunking with the steering.

I list some of the issues so far:

October 2019

Air-conditioning not working

Rear door fault

Nearside rear monitor rattles

Dashboard rattles unless I open the glove box

Paddle up shifts don’t work

Strange tyre wear

Comfort armrest mechanism faulty

Front cup holder broken.

Nearside monitor and rear makes strange musical sound randomly.

Windscreen wipers hit A pillar during heavy rain.

There is a big delay sometimes when you pulling out of a junction before the car will actually go. (Major safety issue).

9/12/19

Good points:

The rattling rear monitor is much better.

The comfort armrest is working perfectly.

The windscreen wipers are working well and are not hitting the “A” pillar any more.

The air-conditioning seems to be working fine but I’m obviously a little bit concerned that no fault could be found.

Not so good points:

Unfortunately the fact that the rear monitor is so quiet has meant that I can now hear the dashboard rattle clearly. The only way to stop the rattle is to open the golf glove box whilst driving. (Not really a suitable solution on such an expensive quality vehicle).

One of the rear monitors makes a random tune.

The cup holder worked fine but then lasted less than a week before it broke again.

3/2/20

Car went in for new rear monitor plus cowling plus dashboard rattle.

All work carried out but dashboard still rattling and monitor is in wrong position so cant be adjusted to watch at a comfortable angle.

13/7/20

Told I would probably have a courtesy car if not somebody would give me a lift back to my unit (only five minutes away).

Phil Groom said he would check out thing air-conditioning fault and see if it was acceptable. I told him there is no way it is acceptable for the air-conditioning gases to empty every six months.

I was told that there were no courtesy cars available and that the service manager would give me a lift but he had just gone onto a conference call.

Kept waiting for two hours in dealership before I left and finally drove my own car home. This is not an acceptable way to treat any customer but particularly one who has invested in one of your best cars.

16/7/20

Phil rang me from service department to explain that the whole of the inside of the car had to be removed and in the process a few bits got broken one which is on backorder so I won’t get the car back till the end of next week. It was definitely the evaporator that was faulty and had been from new.

23/7/20

Phil rang to tell me that the windscreen was about to go in the car but unfortunately they’ve been some damage to an armrest so a replacement one has been ordered and will be hopefully ready on the 28th.

28/7/20

Got the car back until the part arrives

4/8/20

A rear passenger complained that he couldn’t turn off the rear seat massager as the remote had lost Wi-Fi connection. He was complaining it was very uncomfortable but I was unable to pull over and stop as I was on the motorway therefore customer had to wait until the massage switched itself off. (About 5 minutes).

15/8/20

Car locked itself with keys in. (In 12 years of A8 ownership this is the first time this has ever happened).

Noticed windscreen badly fitted

16/8/20

N/S Rear door locking itself randomly and rattles when it does it.

24/9/20

The mechanic nicked the printed circuit board on the light for the rear center console and it now has to be ordered again. The product is on backorder so car will have another day off the road.

A recall is being installed on the ECU for the lag on acceleration

There is apparently a common issue with the control module on the central locking which is a lengthy update that is being carried out today.

October 2020

Although slightly better the vehicle is still dangerously sluggish pulling out of junctions (major safety issue).

Rear doors are still locking themselves almost daily and one day the offside rear door made a constant opening and closing noise, which was very disconcerting. Following your dealership finally admitting there is a known issue with the door module and reprogramming it with the updated software it is worse than ever.

I therefore write to make your Dealership fully aware of these on going problems, and seek a satisfactory resolution at your earliest convenience.

I wish to also bring your attention to the poor after-sales customer care I have received, causing further unnecessary stress. Apparently, my purchase was the highest spec car ever sold by your Dealership, but your staffs' after-sales customer care lacked lustre and trust, causing me to lose confidence from purchasing from your Dealership ever again. But more importantly, the vehicle’s faults exhibited within six months that are on going to date, have now caused me to lose faith in Audi itself. This is extremely disappointing, having been such an avid fan of this brand for years.

I therefore seek a mutually agreed settlement to compensate for my vehicle's faults (past and present). In addition to the time, stress and inconvenience I have suffered whilst Inchcape Chester attempted to rectify my vehicle, and the subsequent damage they caused in the process. Such faults on my extremely valuable purchase should never have been present. I should never have been subjected to such poor quality in both my vehicle and customer care.

Unfortunately after being extremely patient and giving you every opportunity to rectify the faults I am now left with no option other than to reject the car. 

I seek a refund and notice of collection of the car at your earliest convenience.

Thank you for your time and considered response.

Stay Safe
Darren Williamson
Wirral Chauffeurs

 

Please therefore answer the following:

(a) In your expert opinion, do you consider the extent, frequency, and seriousness of the faults listed in this email, together with the dealership’s repeated inability to rectify them, to be acceptable in a flagship Audi A8L representing the highest specification vehicle ever sold by Cheshire Oaks Audi?
(b) Do you accept that the nature and persistence of these faults are inconsistent with the standards of satisfactory quality, durability, and fitness for purpose expected under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

 

202. Central Locking System – Persistent Safety-Critical Fault

The principal defect with the vehicle, present from the date of delivery and first reported within three weeks of ownership, concerned the central locking system. Despite multiple visits to the dealership and many weeks off the road, the issue remained unresolved. The dealer replaced several electronic modules and door latches under warranty, yet the problem persisted. I was ultimately informed by Tom Koutsavakis that “the car would never be fixed.”

Because this fault was so critical and demonstrably present from delivery, I created a dedicated page on my evidence website titled “Engineers Help Page”, specifically intended to assist you in assessing the fault during your investigation. The page, which includes detailed video demonstrations, is available at: https://www.killeraudi.com/general-5-1.

Please therefore answer the following:
(a) Can you explain why there is no indication in your report that you attempted to replicate this fundamental fault?
(b) Did you view and consider the content of the above webpage when preparing your opinion?
(c) What is your professional assessment of the door-locking faults shown in the video evidence?
(d) Do you consider such behaviour to be acceptable in a premium vehicle of this class and value?
(e) Do you accept that the fault presents a serious safety risk to occupants, given that the doors can become inoperable and passengers may be trapped inside?
(f) Do you believe that this fault could be economically repaired, bearing in mind that the authorised dealership was unable to resolve it over several years and multiple warranty interventions?
(g) Would you agree that this defect cannot reasonably be described as normal wear and tear?

 

203. Expected Warranty Claims for Prestige Chauffeur Vehicles

In your expert opinion, and based on your experience of vehicle reliability and warranty performance, when considering established chauffeur operators such as Allison Lee and TriStar, who each run fleets of prestige vehicles including the Mercedes S-Class, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8, all covering high annual mileages, aside from normal wear-and-tear items (for example, brake pads, tyres, windscreen wipers, and routine servicing):

1. How many warranty repairs or claims would you reasonably expect each such vehicle to require per year?
   (b) Do you accept that repeated or high-value warranty claims within the first year of ownership would be inconsistent with what a reasonable consumer would expect from a premium chauffeur-grade vehicle?
   (c) If you do not hold specific data or experience relating to professional chauffeur fleet operations, please confirm that this limits your ability to comment on what level of repair activity would be considered “normal” or “acceptable” for such vehicles.

Expert Compliance with Court Directions

You have served your expert report outside the court-ordered deadline for exchange.
Please confirm the following:

(a) Whether you sought or obtained permission from the Court to extend the filing or service deadline for your report, as required under CPR 35 and the accompanying Practice Direction 35.
(b) If so, please provide the date of any such application, the order or correspondence granting the extension, and the party notified.
(c) If no application was made, please explain on what basis you considered it appropriate to submit your report late without prior authorisation, and whether you are aware that such non-compliance constitutes a procedural breach of the Court’s directions.

(x) Prior Involvement and Potential Conflict of Interest

Please confirm whether you have ever previously carried out any inspections, reports, assessments, or other professional work for Lester Aldridge Solicitors, either in connection with the present matter or in any unrelated cases.
If so, please provide:
(a) The number and approximate dates of any such previous instructions;
(b) The nature and scope of the work undertaken;
(c) Whether those instructions were on behalf of claimants, defendants, or other parties; and
(d) Whether you consider that such prior involvement could give rise to any actual or perceived conflict of interest in providing independent expert evidence in this case.

 

 

Conclusion

Overview

The expert’s report does not provide a reliable foundation for determining satisfactory quality or fitness for purpose under Sections 9 and 10 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It misstates key facts, overlooks plainly disclosed evidence, applies the wrong legal test, and ventures beyond the expert’s demonstrated expertise. The cumulative effect is that little or no weight should be given to the opinions expressed.

Findings of fact relied upon

1. Multiple serious defects arose within the first year of ownership, including an internal evaporator leak, repeated central locking failures causing occupant entrapment risk, and a documented rear wheel steering incident at about 40 mph.

2. Warranty spends and downtime exceeded £15,000 with the air conditioning repairs alone exceeding four thousand pounds.

3. Audi authorised an evaporator replacement inside the cabin, a repair type which is inherently inconsistent with ordinary wear and tear.

4. The supplying dealership explored a replacement vehicle and stated that the car would never be fixed, which is inconsistent with a belief that the car was fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality.

5. The expert used an Autel MS906 universal scanner rather than VCDS or ODIS and did not attempt to replicate the central locking entrapment fault despite step by step instructions and video evidence.

6. The expert quoted an incorrect refrigerant capacity figure and did not address the implications of an in cabin leak using the correct capacity.

Methodological and factual defects

1. Incomplete evidence reviews
   The expert states that documentation was not furnished despite the provision of warranty invoices, photographs, timelines, and unrestricted access to a dedicated website. Key sections, including the rear steer incident and the central locking replication page, were not engaged with. This is a breach of the duty to set out the facts and literature relied upon and to deal with material facts that detract from the opinion.

2. Wrong legal frame for Section 10 CRA
   Mileage is used as a proxy for fitness for purpose. The proper test is whether the goods were reasonably capable at supply of meeting the known purpose, which here is reliable high mileage chauffeur work. High mileage was not a risk factor; it was the core purpose.

3. Mischaracterisation of HVAC failure
   An internal evaporator leak is not a use related wear item. Wear related leaks typically arise in the condenser due to debris and stone impact and are often excluded from warranty. Audi authorised an evaporator replacement inside the cabin and absorbed over four thousand pounds in HVAC repairs, which is inconsistent with a wear and tear categorisation. The report also adopts an incorrect refrigerant capacity, understating potential exposure by nearly three hundred percent, and then uses that error to downplay risk.

4. Safety critical defects not addressed
   The report does not analyse the central locking entrapment risk or the documented rear steer event against the system’s design limits. For dynamic all wheel steering, rear wheels move up to about five degrees below twenty five miles per hour and about one degree in the same direction as the front at higher speeds. A five degree rear steer at around forty miles per hour is a gross malfunction with a foreseeable loss of control risk. None of this is analysed.

5. Diagnostic limitations and failure to replicate
   Using a universal tool rather than VCDS or ODIS limits access to proprietary functions, coding, adaptations, guided fault finding, and complete module interrogation. The expert did not follow the replication procedure provided for the central locking fault and did not produce or annex a full factory level scan or guided test documentation.

6. Expertise mismatch
   The expert’s public profile shows a primary focus on classic and historic vehicles. The issues here involve modern, electronically integrated systems including dynamic rear steer, multi zone climate control with R 1234yf, and fly by wire door systems. There is no identification of relevant HVAC qualifications such as F Gas, manufacturer training, or IMI accreditations, nor of specialist training on Audi dynamic rear steer.

Departures from expert duties

Under CPR 35.3 an expert’s primary duty is to the court. Under Practice Direction 35 and the Ikarian Reefer principles an expert must set out the facts and assumptions relied upon, consider material that detracts from the conclusion, remain within the area of expertise, and make clear where a question falls outside expertise. The report departs from these standards in each of the ways identified above.

Consequences for weight

The combination of incomplete evidence review, factual misstatements, wrong legal framing, diagnostic shortcomings, and expertise gaps means that the opinions are unsafe. On the CRA 2015 issues the weight of this report should be minimal.

Relief sought

1. Weight and compliance
   That the court gives the expert’s current opinions little or no weight on satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose.

2. Targeted answers on oath
   That the court directs written answers within fourteen days to the Defendant’s CPR 35.6 questions, including
   a schedule identifying every section of the evidence website actually reviewed
   copies of all diagnostic printouts and fault codes generated during inspection
   specific sources and data supporting any statistical or probability assertions, including the classification of an evaporator failure as anything other than rare
   a corrected analysis using the accurate refrigerant capacity and an in cabin leak scenario.

3. Addendum correcting errors
   That the court directs an addendum report correcting the refrigerant capacity, confirming qualifications and training on HVAC and dynamic rear steer, explaining the diagnostic methodology, and addressing the central locking entrapment and rear steer incident against the system’s design limits.

4. Meeting of experts and joint statement
   That the court orders a meeting of experts under CPR 35.12 and a joint statement identifying matters agreed and not agreed, with reasons.

5. Permission for alternative expert
   In the alternative, or if compliance is not achieved, that the Defendant be permitted to rely on a replacement expert with demonstrable experience in modern Audi systems, R 1234yf HVAC, and dynamic rear steer. Costs of the defective report and any consequential delay to be reserved.

Cross examination roadmap

If the court prefers to test the evidence orally, the following topics are proposed for cross examination.

1. Exact list of evidence sources reviewed and those omitted.

2. Why mileage was used as a proxy for Section 10 CRA purpose and durability.

3. Why an internal evaporator leak was treated as wear and tear in the face of an Audi warranty repair.

4. Why the wrong refrigerant capacity was used and whether the risk opinion changes with the correct capacity.

5. Reasons for using Autel rather than VCDS or ODIS and why the replication protocol for central locking was not followed.

6. The expert’s formal training and accreditations on R 1234yf HVAC and dynamic rear steer.

7. Whether a five degree rear steer event at about forty miles per hour is compatible with safe operation.

8. Whether a vehicle that can trap occupants because of electronic locking can meet the Section 9 and Section 10 standards.

Additional Analysis – Expertise Limitations

Mr Douglas Reid’s professional background, as disclosed in his own statement of qualifications, demonstrates experience primarily in routine vehicle servicing, MOT testing, and work on classic or mainstream automotive systems rather than advanced, electronically integrated luxury vehicles. His listed credentials include City & Guilds 3830 Levels 1–3 in Road Vehicle Service & Repair, senior technician status with Renault and Toyota, MOT tester certification, and a range of historic electrical and vehicle security courses from the 1990s. He also notes completion of introductory IMI courses on electric vehicles in 2020 and identifies himself as a “Classic Car Inspector.”

While these credentials establish basic competence in mechanical inspection and general automotive systems, they do not demonstrate the level of specialist expertise required to provide reliable opinions on the complex, manufacturer-specific technologies central to this case. In particular, there is no evidence of:

• Manufacturer training, accreditation, or technical data access with Audi or Volkswagen Group.
• F-Gas certification (Category I or equivalent) authorising the handling and assessment of R-1234yf refrigerant systems.
• Advanced diagnostic training or factory-level software proficiency in VCDS (VAG-COM Diagnostic System) or ODIS (Offboard Diagnostic Information System).
• Experience with modern dynamic electronic chassis systems, including Audi’s rear-wheel steering and fly-by-wire central locking architectures.
• Formal academic or professional qualifications in HVAC engineering, vehicle safety systems, or the assessment of chemical or refrigerant exposure risks.

The absence of these essential qualifications, combined with his predominant focus on MOT testing, general servicing, and classic vehicle inspection, indicates that Mr Reid lacks the depth of manufacturer-specific knowledge and electronic diagnostic expertise necessary to assess a vehicle of this complexity. The Audi A8L incorporates advanced technologies such as dynamic all-wheel steering, multi-zone climate control using R-1234yf refrigerant, adaptive suspension systems, and integrated safety-critical control modules—all far beyond the systems covered by Mr Reid’s listed experience.

Accordingly, his conclusions regarding air-conditioning system failure, refrigerant toxicity, rear-wheel steering safety, and vehicle electronics should be treated with significant caution. The limitations of his experience materially undermine the reliability of his analysis, and the weight given to his opinions should therefore be limited.

 

Two sentence summary

The report does not meet CPR 35 standards. It misstates key facts, applies the wrong legal test, ignores critical evidence, and lacks the specialist foundation required for modern Audi systems, so its opinions should carry little or no weight and the court should order precise answers and corrections or allow alternative expert evidence.

Further Notes

 

Email to Stephen Fisher following a telephone conversation. 19 April 2021

Dear Mr. Fisher

I spoke to you on 12 April 2021 (for 37 minutes) regarding the ongoing issues with my vehicle. 

You said you would speak to Matt Whitaker the following morning and get him to contact me to arrange rectification of some of the faults. 

I am still waiting to hear from him.

I have attached three PDFs detailing the three main issues I’ve had with the vehicle from new.

Issue 1: Involuntary locking and unlocking of the doors (safety issue) 

Issue 2: Air Conditioning Leak

Issue 3: Rear Steering Fault (SEVERE SAFETY ISSUE)

 

The Sale of Goods Act demand that all products must be:

Of satisfactory quality

Fit for purpose

As described

I was described by your technician as being “one of the most patient customers he’s ever had “. Unfortunately, my patience has got me nowhere. After two years of owning this vehicle (although during that time it has spent several months in your workshop) you have been unable to repair it and fix all the faults. 

Hopefully we can come to an amicable resolution as quickly as possible.

 

20 October 2021

Dear Mr Fisher,

 

Following our long discussion on 12th April 2021, whereby you requested I put my complaint in writing, I am still awaiting your response.

 

You verbally stated a resolution would probably be met between Audi Finance, Cheshire Oaks Audi and Audi UK.

 

You mentioned that you had tried to find a suitable vehicle to swap me into but there was nothing available to match the high spec on my vehicle.

 

I took our discussion in good faith that you would honour your intentions to come to a resolution.

 

Since our conversation the vehicle has continued to prove unfit for purpose and following many weeks in your workshop the faults remain.

 

I am shocked and extremely disappointed that you have shown no regard or respect; failing to respond to my letter dated 19th April 2021.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence, and advise of your intentions to honour our verbal discussion.

Kind Regards

 

Darren/Jill Williamson

 

 

21 October 2021

 

Good afternoon Mr Williamson

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your e mail below, and I am sorry that this matter has not been concluded for you. I understand that Audi Finance had made their position clear, and had attempted to contact you directly. Also, that you have been liaising with Matt Whittaker when bringing your vehicle to the Centre in the interim.

 

However, it is clear from your e-mail that this matter is not resolved. I would like to apologise unreservedly for any lack of action or confirmation on my/our part. It remains our intention to be able to support you in this matter and I am going to take advice from our Group Customer Services team to assist in the next steps to move this forwards towards a conclusion for you.

 

I will get in touch with them tomorrow and as soon as I have spoken to them, we will come back to you with a plan of action and ensure that there is no breakdown in communication with you moving forwards.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Steve Fisher / Head of Business

Cheshire Oaks Audi | Longlooms Road East | Ellesmere Port | Cheshire | CH65 9LF

 

2 March 2022

 

Dear Mr Fisher,

 

Following our discussion on 12 April 2021, whereby you requested I put my complaint in writing, I am still awaiting your response.

 

You verbally stated a resolution would be met between Audi Finance, Audi Cheshire Oakes and Audi UK.

 

I took our discussion in good faith and that you would honour your intentions to resolve between the other two Companies.  

I am shocked and extremely disappointed that you have shown no regard nor respect; failing to respond to my letter dated 19 April 2021.

 

Please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence, and advise of your intentions to honour our verbal discussion.

 

Kind Regards

Darren/Jill Williamson

WIRRAL CHAUFFEURS