Trouble with Toyota's headlamps

HELPDESK: MICHAEL McALEERanswers all your motoring queries

From Phil Pidgeon, Dublin 16: I drive a five-year-old Toyota Avensis. In November last, I needed to replace the light bulb in the headlight. When the mechanic at my local garage inspected the car, he informed me that because the metal hood that holds the lightbulb had melted, he would have to replace the complete headlight unit. He advised me to take the car to my local Toyota dealership, as the work was costly, and he believed the problem to be a manufacturing design fault.

I took the care to a local Toyota dealer and the serviceman said that he would contact Toyota Ireland to check if the car could be repaired at Toyota’s expense, as he also believed the problem to be a design fault. He confirmed to me that because the metal hood that holds the light bulb had melted, I would have to replace the complete headlight unit. He explained that Toyota had changed the material of this bulb hood in 2006 because of this problem.

He also informed me that both headlight units would need to be replaced, at a cost of €700. A few days later, I was informed that Toyota Ireland refused the request as I bought the car from a non-Toyota dealership, and it had passed the warranty period. A headlight unit should last for the lifetime of the car, apart from changing the light bulb.

Toyota is claiming to be the most reliable car manufacturer in the world, but having to pay €700 to replace two lightbulbs is in no way reliable.

We initially addressed this problem some weeks back, and at the time Toyota didn’t offer a comprehensive remedy. This time, in a statement, it said: “Whilst it is regrettable that some customers may have experienced headlamp failures with the 2003/2004 model Avensis, our dealers have been extending a free-of-charge repair if a failure arose under the three-year warranty period provided with our vehicles.

“The fault occurred only on certain cars produced during that time period, therefore we cannot agree to a general product failure. The supplier (meeting Toyota standards) who has produced these parts cannot be held responsible, again due to the big amount of external factors that can cause this damage.

“We have been quite prepared to consider customer requests in the past event outside of the three-year warranty on a goodwill basis, however there is a limitation to any goodwill allowance extended to our customers.”

We find this statement unconvincing. Customers should not have to depend merely on the goodwill of a dealer. Simply put, the headlight unit should last the lifetime of the car if it’s not damaged or abused.

These units last the lifetime on other cars – and on other Avensis vehicles – so why not here? If it is wear and tear, then Toyota will no doubt be able to identify such issues and dismiss the claims.

In this case, Toyota doesn’t address the claim that the headlight failed because of a design flaw: it merely says that it doesn’t think it is in Toyota’s interests to assist you, as you didn’t buy the car from one of its franchise dealers and the company is no longer obliged to assist you, as the car is out of warranty.

The simple question is this: why should you face a bill of €700 when other Avensis owners – or virtually all other motorists – avoid such a payment?

With age, you expect wear and tear on many parts, but not on headlight units and certainly not after just five years. Cars are incredibly intricate machines that are expected to withstand rough conditions, and sometimes problems only show up later in a car’s lifetime.

If that is the case here, then Toyota should replace the parts as the problems arise. I trust its mechanics can spot genuine failures from bogus claims.

This firm has garnered a reputation for quality and reliability that others envy, but it comes at a price and that means looking after customers who suffer problems with origins that lie in the design or production process. Even if the car is out of warranty, it behoves Toyota to do the right thing in these instances.

If the problem was one of design or production, I’m sure the world’s largest car firm is more than able to pursue compensation for costs from the supplier in question.