if they dont pay to get it fixed then a small claims summons is in order
But with nothing in writing wouldn't it boil down to his word against mine? He could say I'd verbally authorised the work but apart from cancelling the job part way through (unlikely) I cannot *prove* otherwise.
What chance of success would I realistically have?
|
depends 50/50, but it will cost him more to defend than pay up probably, u only have to risk the summons fee (about 10% of amount u r claiming)
worth doing it if he has genuinely been an idiot and done what u say
make sure u get seperate invoice for fix to original problem to fix to whatever he damaged
in my experience the judege usually favours the public, u in this case
I am not a lawyer, I dont pretent to be, no doubt others will come and give there spin, pug etc who are legal eagles
however members of the public have few other avenues in situations like these than a small claims summons, u could mention it to trading standards or the press - but neither are likely to get your money back
|
If you paid by credit card, I would phone them up for a chargeback form and instruct them to with-hold payment, if you didn't then just take it on the chin and pay by CC (not debit card) in future.
I wouldn't bother with court, as the handle will not be worth the expense, and trouble of making a strong case.
|
|
|
>>(about 10% of amount u r claiming)>>
Complete nonsense. The fixed fee is £27 for up to £5,000 being claimed.
I've used the small claims court on two or three occasions but only after exhausting all avenues first.
The hearing has always been scrupulously fair and, because I've been able to present a fully detailed case, have won them all.
The latest information (posted only a couple of days ago) can be found at:
www.adviceguide.org.uk/nw/index/your_rights/legal_...m
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
|
>>if they dont pay to get it fixed then a small claims summons is in order
That is ridiculous advice. It is also becoming pretty typical. Yeah I know, you're not a lawyer but you've helped thousands of people sue millions of companies and they'e all won billions of pounds. Whatever.
However, back in the real world.....
Firstly you need to consider a couple of things;
1) Have they been unreasonable ? Was there another way that they could have done it ? Was it avoidable ? Was it bad workmanship or bad communication ? Have you been unreasonable ? In hindsight, could they have done it a different/better way ? etc. etc.
Make sure you hold a considered, objective and reasonable view of what has occurred.
2) What do you want out of it ? - Money back ? an apology ? a grovelling letter ? some work done free ? an acknowledgement ? Whatever it will take to satisfy you needs to be clear in your mind.
Given those two things then ring up the garage and see what they have to say. Right now, for all anyone knows, they could say "sorry sir, bring it in we'll fix everything" or they could say "bog off, don't care".
Its a bit pointless proceeding without knowing that.
If you manage to consider 1) & 2) and carry out the conversation and have not reached satisfaction, then is the time to consider potential further actions.
|
The garage knows they have damaged it, they have written something to that effect on the receipt.
This is one way of approaching it that as the post above implies could safe a lot of hassle.
Get a photo of it now.
Get a quote to fix from a good bodyshop.
Then, as Mark says open up discussions with the garage.
Politely explain that you would expect them to put right the damage they had caused, as they are obviously a reputable outfit and stand by their work.
You could then give them the option of repairing it themselves or paying the quote to repair. Explain that if they took the first option you would expect a good standard of workmanship.
They may either, accept the car back to put the damage right or suggest sharing the cost of repair with you, but an approach along these lines is more likely to get you an earlier result.
H
|
|
|
1) Have they been unreasonable ? Was there another way that they could have done it ? Was it avoidable ? Was it bad workmanship or bad communication ? Have you been unreasonable ? In hindsight, could they have done it a different/better way ?
I've come to the conclusion it was bad communication on both parts. All the discussions up to this point were around opening the door w/o damaging the card. When he'd discussed going though the card I had mentioned some existing cosmetic damage to the card by my son's shoes. Whilst at no point did I explicitly say "go ahead, trash it", he must have taken that as a green light to steam right ahead. However, he'd made it clear there was quite a lead time on a replacement card - new or used - so had no chance of completing the job that day. He also knew I was going to phone back after I'd talked to breakers and my wife (her car) about the options. The fact that when I phoned to abandon the job he neglected to mention that it was already in progress makes me think that he realised he'd perhaps overstepped his mandate.
That is ridiculous advice. It is also becoming pretty typical. Yeah I know, you're not a lawyer but you've helped thousands of people sue millions of companies and they'e all won billions of pounds.
I am quite aware that there is much to lose pursuing justice over a perceived point of principle. Whilst a new card is 250 quid, a breaker has quoted me 45 including delivery for a used part - if a match can be found. That is a small percentage of my annual spend keeping two 100k+ milers on the road. I suspect I will chalk this incident up to experience. Life's too short and pockets are only so deep.
Thanks, Mark, for your considered reponse.
|
Mark,
You're a lovely chap and all that, but I don't think you're advice is particularly perfect either.
For instance the stuff about insurance companies having a contract and they will honour whatever it says, was naive in the extreme. We both know that unless it ends up in a serious legal fight the insurance contract is of marginal significance versus the day to day claims policies implemented by the insurance company claims dept. Such customer service policies can be radically different from one company to the next, despite their underlying contract being very much the same. Ways of organising negotiation with insurance companies, and brokers, should take this into account.
As to the "ridiculous advice", I would disagree. Small claims summons is one very small way for the ordinary person to fight back against the routine shoddy workmanship and attitude of much of the people we pay handsomely to look after us. It doesn't cost much (ok I may have got the cost wrong), and the threat of it is often enough to get the right result, and your downside risks are minimal.
Everyone chalking down bad service to experience is what leads to the poor service dished out by these places.
A small claims summons has caused the total turnaround of one of the largest garage chains? its a useful tool when they are clearly taking the Mick. People should do it a whole lot more often.
Regards etc
|
For instance the stuff about insurance companies having a contract and they will honour whatever it says, was naive in the extreme.
I can't remember what I said exactly, but I think if you check I said something along the lines of they usually do and there are fairly strong punishments if they don't.
I'd stand by that.
>>Such customer service policies can be radically different from one company to the next, despite their underlying contract being very much the same.
"Radically" is stretching it somewhat, but clearly there can be differences, hence my comments the other day about customer service.
As to the "ridiculous advice", I would disagree. Small claims summons is one very small way for the ordinary person to fight back
Of course it is. However, to advise someone that they should go straight to court without considering objectively the situation and their expectations is a nonsense.
Half the time these things are the result of bad communication, and not the nasty evil corporation hurting the little man.
Everyone chalking down bad service to experience is what leads to the poor service dished out by these places.
Now that I wouldn't argue with.
As for any other of your comments, or anybody elses - if you want to discuss moderating then do it by e-mail.
|
Sorry folks but this seems like a great deal of unnecessary strife!
It looks as if the lock cannot be reached without damaging the door lining - either by this garage or another.
Bearing this in mind, a good secondhand trim would seem an economical and satisfactory solution.
Have a chat with the garage. Suggest sourcing a secondhand trim and splitting the cost - or you paying for the trim and them fitting it for free.
With the 'new' trim available it would be a doddle to get stuck in to the lock and have everything back 'as new' in no time.
Remember, you could have gone straight to another garage who might have said from the outset - 'sorry, we can't do it without replacing the trim'- which is where you are now anyway!
You could almost argue that this garage were trying hard to save you this cost and their best intentions didn't work out. We're all human!
I'd go for a compromise - less hassle in the end.
Graeme
|
|
|
|
|
|
