SteveWalker
|
| posted on 12/7/25 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
Legal question. Faulty brake bleeding kit and damage
My Eezibleed was at least 30 years old and the internal pickup tube had hardened, broken off and was unusable, so I went and bought a whole new kit
from Halfords.
On using it (tyre at 15 psi) air leaked around the pipes entering and leaving the bleed bottle and they needed to be gently pulled up to seat them and
get the air pressure to seal them.
It also leaked where the pipe joined the reservoir cap, leaking fluid and stripping paint from my metal reservoir. On moving the pipe slightly to seal
it in the same way, it sprayed fluid out and then the whole pipe came off, spraying fluid all over.
Despite immediately hosing it down, the fluid has attacked the paint on the wing and badly attacked the paint on the driver's door (it's an
old ex-military Land Rover and the driver's door folds fully forward and was therefore alongside the wing when it happened. The whole car had
recently been stripped and fully repainted, so it really stands out.
It appears that the pipe is retained in the cap purely by being pushed through the hole and a metal tube being inserted to widen the tube slightly,
but this appears to be insufficient to ensure a proper seal.
Does either the manufacturer or the retailer bear any responsibility for the damage caused by the failure of a brand-new tool?
[Edited on 12/7/25 by SteveWalker]
|
|
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 12/7/25 at 10:21 PM |
|
|
I thought this was normal…. Mine was utter crap too.
I suspect they’d just turn round and say you used it wrong. Might get a refund for the kit if you take it back as faulty but beyond that…. Doubt
you’d get much
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 12/7/25 at 11:31 PM |
|
|
Not sure how you can use it wrong in a way that causes the tube to come completely out of the cap, with only 15 psi in the tyre. I never had any
problems with the 30-year old one, until the plastics aged too much.
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 13/7/25 at 11:34 AM |
|
|
Very unlikely to cover consequential loss. You could try small claims court, but the stress/cost etc really would be too much to justify it,
especially with a marginal chance of winning.
EDIT
Read this https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-010-4849?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
[Edited on 13/7/25 by cliftyhanger]
|
|
|
jacko
|
| posted on 13/7/25 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
They would say you had a higher pressure then 15 psi can you prove any other ?
Sorry to read your problem
Graham
555
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 13/7/25 at 01:27 PM |
|
|
Impossible to prove, although I did specifically put a gauge on and drop the pressure of that tyre. However, the maximum allowed pressure is 20 psi
and the vehicle handbook states for the tyre pressures to be between 15 and 25 psi and there would normally be a safety margin built in, so even 25
should not cause such a failure.
|
|
|
40inches
|
| posted on 14/7/25 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
My Eezibleed was the same. I no longer put fluid in the bottle, just keep a close eye on the master cylinder level.
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 14/7/25 at 01:19 PM |
|
|
Not so practical in this case, as a) the reservoir volume is small and b) it is a steel reservoir, so you can't keep an eye on the level while
you are bleeding.
I's now bought a completely different design of bleeder online - with proper quick connect fittings, not just tubes poked through and held in by
hope alone.
|
|
|
Theshed
|
| posted on 14/7/25 at 02:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cliftyhanger
Very unlikely to cover consequential loss. You could try small claims court, but the stress/cost etc really would be too much to justify it,
especially with a marginal chance of winning.
EDIT
Read this https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-010-4849?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)
[Edited on 13/7/25 by cliftyhanger]
I am not sure I would agree that the quoted case supports the view that there is a marginal chance of recovery.
I would have thought that damage to paintwork from brake fluid leakage would be well within the rule in Hadley v Baxendale. Approach it this way, at
the time of the contract what are the foreseeable consequences of the tool failing?
The only hard part in my view is establishing that the seals failed within the recommended pressure range.
I would agree that bringing a claim is a pain - but many people do it. The court fees are modest.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 15/7/25 at 12:06 PM |
|
|
[im not legally trained]
Your contract is with the company who supplied you the product.
Alternative way to look at it.....
how much is it going to cost the company to contest the case in court. Solicitors and lawyers charge a fortune in 10 or 15 minute increments. If its
going to take them a few hours to build their case, then pay someone to represent them in court etc you may find they make a more reasonable offer to
avoid the expense and publicity.
If you've still got the equipment I'd be getting some independent testing done to prove it failed at a lower pressure than its supposed to
work at which you can present as evidence to support your case.
Assuming you win you may be able to reclaim this cost. I'm not sure what happens if you lose regarding the other companies costs.... i'd
check that out first.
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 15/7/25 at 03:16 PM |
|
|
Yeah it's an awful product. I'd certainly try my hand at requesting it but don't hold your breath.
That said, I've spilled brake fluid all over engine bays before, never once had paint stripped or even marked.
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 16/7/25 at 02:54 PM |
|
|
It likely stripped as this is old-fashioned (but new) enamel paint on a classic Land Rover, not a more modern paint and lacquer.
|
|
|
