The Grenadier Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to contribute to the community by adding your own topics, posts, and connect with other members through your own private inbox! INEOS Agents, Dealers or Commercial vendors please use the contact us link at the bottom of the page.

Stuck at Cape York

Regarding communication from INEOS which seems to have upset a number of people, there are reasons why manufacturers often don’t give a detailed post-mortem after a major failure like this one — even when the insurer has already accepted the claim. It’s not always about hiding anything. A big part of it is simply that once complex part like an engine lets go catastrophically, there usually isn’t enough hard evidence left to say exactly which internal part failed first or what the precise chain of events was. If they can’t prove it 100%, they won’t go on the record with it.

There’s also a customer-protection angle people don’t often consider. If a manufacturer states a specific cause — for example, “the driver over-waded and ingested water” — that can easily turn into the owner being blamed, disputes with insurers, or arguments about improper use. By keeping it broad (“environmental factors”), they avoid making accusations or locking the owner into a position they then have to defend.

It basically prevents everyone from ending up in a technical or legal tug-of-war. The claim gets paid, the owner gets their car repaired, and no one has to argue over an engine that’s too damaged to diagnose with certainty.

So while the lack of detail feels frustrating, sometimes that silence is the thing that quietly keeps the process smooth for the customer, even when they might not realise this during a period of heightened emotion.
 
I like your thinking here👍🏼, perhaps those concerned should have thought in more detail before posting that recent video 🙄
 
I like your thinking here👍🏼, perhaps those concerned should have thought in more detail before posting that recent video 🙄
Exactly. Publishing this video is actually not in the customer’s best interests. If they force INEOS’s hand to explain their diagnosis of the cause, they risk placing the owner in the position that they have to defend their actions to the insurer, who might then deny their claim. Vagueness and uncertainty protects the customer here. Unfortunately in a state of heightened emotion, he doesn’t realise that. None of this publicity actually helps - INEOS are copping flack and potential financial loss (through lost sales) by protecting their customer. I hope they actually do remain silent here, despite their own loss, even though their customer doesn’t know how to look after himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom