Anyone venture some advice, I put my car into a reputable and recommended garage to have the downpipe replaced and quoted a price which included fitting all inclusive.
I\'ve since returned to pay for the work and pick up the car to be told that it needed an extra two hours work which they are charging as the bolts had seized and needed working, drilling or somthing. Not a problem these things happen.
When the car came back from their test drive, they then informed me when doing the work they knocked the sump tank when removing the original down pipe and cracked it, as they put it, it was already very weak and now I need to pay for a new sump tank and gasket and 3 hours additonal labour.
Anyone any advice on how to handle this, I feel, but I am unsure, that the responsibility is theirs as the car didn\'t have this problem until they created it. Or could it just have been waiting to happen and be grateful that they found the sump tank was weak?
|
|
Everything is weak if you hit it hard enough...if they broke it let them mend and pay for it. Would be more than a 'knock' to hole it too I'm sure. I think they are taking the mick even charging you for the labour!
|
I'm sure the standard procedure when replacing the down pipe is not to knock the sump in, so presumably it was an accident, but I don't see why you should have to pay for their mistake.
My experiences have been better. With a chain when I was getting four shockers on my Fiesta changed, they pulled the handbrake on hard and the cable snapped. I was told about it when I arrived to pick the car up, but they had ordered a new cable from the Ford Dealer and if I could live without the handbrake for a night they would fit it free of charge tomorrow. It must have been on the way out but there was no quibble at all.
Another Private garage was putting the Renault through an MOT and on a test drive they forgot to close the bonnet properly. The catches were sticking and the result was that the bonnet popped open at 30 mph and folded back breaking the windcreen. They gave me a replacement car (admittedly a scrappy nova) and got it fixed after a week at no charge.
Chris TD
|
|
|
|
|
What car was it? If a Punto, quite possible the sump was 'weak'.
|
A-T,
you really don't like Fiat group, do you!
Anyway, back on thread.
I put my old Rover into a local Ford dealer for an MOT and oil/filter change last year (they were offering a good fixed price deal) and they stripped the thread on the sump itself, rather than the sump plug. It was only noticed the next day when I came out and saw a puddle of oil under the car.
Took it back and within an hour they had arranged for a local engineering firm to fit a heli-coil, replacing the stripped-out thread. No quibble and a grovelling apology.
As a bonus, the car had to be refilled with fresh oil, so I effectively got a semi-synth flush and refill for my money.
The garage really should accept responsibility for this. It's galling enough when you pay them to diagnose and they replace everything but the faulty part (at great expense) but for them to expect you to pay for their accident is taking the proverbial.
|
|
You left the car with them in good faith, they broke your car unrelated to the repair, i.e. it was the sump they busted it ifs their problem, they pay. If they refuse and they are a main dealer go thru the UK head Office Customer Service or Tradign standards. Regards and good luck Peter
|
|
|
you really don't like Fiat group, do you!
Does anybody apart from Michael Schumacher?
|
|
|
|
Sorry, N-d - I don't recall ever slandering Fiat cars. I owned a Punto for 18 months (and quite liked it) until a 306 TD came along at a good price. But my daughter's Punto sump was on the point of rusting through last year, and I then learnt from this site that it is a common problem. Hence my comment.
|
Sorry, N-d - I don't recall ever slandering Fiat cars. I owned a Punto for 18 months (and quite liked it) until a 306 TD came along at a good price. But my daughter's Punto sump was on the point of rusting through last year, and I then learnt from this site that it is a common problem. Hence my comment.
Sorry, it was another Andrew.
Mea Culpa, as they would say in Turin c 250 AD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re \"When the car came back from their test drive, they then informed me when doing the work they knocked the sump tank\", how did they discover the fault? Oil warning light? Bit of a mess on the road? Might be more than the sump that needs replacing now. Have it inspected by an engineer on your side sue the pink fluffy dice if there is evidence of foul play!.
|
Er "Test drive", after fitting a new exhaust downpipe. My experience is that its either blowing or its not and it does not need road testing to ascertain that!
Sounds to me like its been "test driven" to the bacon butty shop and grounded or the fitter has been ham fisted when working on it or taking it on/off the ramp.
I would ask for them to put it back on the ramp and have a butchers.
What sort of car is it? Ally sumps crack, steel sumps bend unless its old and rotten which I've found happen on a couple of Fords. An ally sump would need a good belt to crack them.
|
MMM this is interesting. Taking comments "An ally sump would need a good belt to crack them."
Now I know that this is a bit extreme, but why couldn't they be done for criminal damage?
Apologies for my ignorance.
|
For criminal damage (or any other criminal offence) you have to prove two things. Firstly that the act itself has occured, and then, crucially, that the person intended to do it and has no reasonable excuse.
In this case, it should be easy to prove the first part but not the second. I doubt they intended to damage the sump, merely careless or reckless.
So no criminal offence, but certainly grounds for civil action (Small Claims Court) if they don't play ball.
|
Not quite Nick, for lots of criminal offences no intention necessary and are no excuses as such (though may receive an absolute discharge on conviction). And certainly for criminal damage intention is NOT necessary, recklessness is enough Criminal damage is :
A person who without lawful excuse:
(1) destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum, or to both;
(2) destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another, intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged, and intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life or for any shorter term.
Of course the real reason not criminal damage is that is
(1) No evidence of necessary elements
(2) Police would not be interested
(3) CPS would not be interested
What it is though is negligence by the garage, and as such as I said before the garage should pay.
Negligence needs
(1) Duty of care exists
(2) Duty breached
(3) Damage caused
|
|
I think you'll find there are reasonable excuses for just about all offences, including crim dam. Proving 'reckless' ain't easy either. Still life's too short....
|
Nick, Gen's answer is right on the money. There are lawful excuses but it's quite easy to prove recklessness if a reasonable man would have seen the consequence coming.
Certain offences, such as supplying alcohol to an inebriated person in Cundy v LeCoq attract strict liability, i.e., even if there is no malicious intent or even a way of knowing that you are committing the offence, you can be convicted of it. If you drive at 90 mph in a car with a broken speedo and are keeping up with the traffic, you are still committing an offence.
Even so, I agree that there is not much chance of a criminal damage as 'lawful excuse' here would cover the car being worked on even if they were ham fisted about it.
|
|
|
|
