Rush of complaints follows Volkswagen scare

VOLKSWAGEN owners lodged almost 60 complaints with the federal department responsible for car safety in the month following widespread allegations that its vehicles could stop unexpectedly.

In the same document, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport has revealed that it has no powers to force a car-maker to recall a vehicle over potential safety concerns.

The department last week released what it called a “context statement” relating to a Freedom of Information request asking for the number of customer complaints dating back to 2007 and relating to Audi, Skoda and Volkswagen-badged cars – all of which fall under the Volkswagen Group brand.

It reveals that in the month of June when revelations were first aired that VW-badged cars were experiencing an unexplained loss of power, the department received 58 complaints from Volkswagen owners.

This compares with just 15 complaints from Volkswagen owners in the seven years leading up to May 29 this year.

By comparison, four Audi owners complained about their vehicles in June compared with only three dating back to 2007, while only a single Skoda owner – the brand launched in Australia in 2007 – had lodged a complaint in the same month as VW’s recall.

“... These complaints reflect situations where a vehicle complaint form has been completed, the vehicle and issues have been identified and the individual concerned has provided the required information to the department,” the statement from the department reads.

“This table (of customer complaints) is indicative of the complaints received, not investigations undertaken.” The department has also spelt out how it deals with an owner’s complaint about a car.

“When an individual has concerns about a vehicle and wishes to make a complaint they are asked to complete a standard vehicle complaint form that collects basic information about the vehicle, the individual owner and the issues or concerns,” it said.

“Complaints that relate to consumer satisfaction (including general product quality, warranties, levels of service and compensation) are not investigated by this department and the department does not provide a consumer advocacy function and cannot act on behalf of a complainant.” It said it then assessed if an investigation should receive priority over others.

“Generally referrals from coroners receive the highest priority, followed by complaints with evidence of death and/or injury, evidence of non-compliance with motor vehicle standards legislation and finally other matters where the complainant believes there may be a safety issue,” the department said.

“Matters that are not investigated are still recorded as they may support systemic issues in the future.” It then said the department would spark an investigation of a vehicle only if it could show evidence of a “systemic or ongoing issue that relates to the design or manufacture of a type of vehicle”.

“Where there is a significant number of complaints that may indicate a wide-scale or systemic issue, the department asks the relevant manufacturer to conduct an investigation,” it said.

“Generally the department would ask the manufacturer to advise on any known issues, the volume of complaints, cause, effect and levels of risk.

“The department will then assess the manufacturer’s responses to determine if there is an issue related to the design or manufacture of the vehicle/s (as opposed to issues caused by driver behaviour, road conditions or lack of maintenance) and that the issue will or may cause injury.

“If so, the manufacturer is encouraged to undertake a voluntary recall.” According to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, it is up to the car-maker to “identify and address any safety issues in accordance with the Competition and Consumer Act” that protects car-buyers.

“As a part of these arrangements, a manufacturer notifies the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) of their intent to recall a vehicle and provides details on the defect, hazard and proposed rectification.

“The manufacturer also provides regular progress reports to the department,” it said.

“It should be noted that the department has no powers to force a manufacturer to conduct a recall.” The Victorian coroners court is this month expected to hand down a finding relating to the death of 32-year-old Melissa Ryan, who was killed in 2011 after a truck ploughed into the back of her Volkswagen Golf on the Monash Freeway.

The inquest had heard Ms Ryan’s Golf had unexpectedly slowed down to about 20km/h in the right-hand lane of the freeway shortly before a B-double truck slammed into the rear of her car, forcing it into the central barrier.

However, while Volkswagen issued a recall in mid-June for models using its seven-speed dual clutch transmission – including the Polo and Golf hatchbacks, Golf wagon, Jetta sedan, Passat sedan and wagon, and Caddy light commercial vehicle built between June 2008 and September 2012 – the car at the centre of the coronial inquest was fitted with a manual gearbox.