Disastrous Car Servicing... anyone legally minded?

AndyD_OHD

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Let's have a recap.

Someone borrows a car.

It breaks down along way from home.

The resuce people get it to a garage.

It then transpires that it's a bigger issue and it's carted off to the main dealer.

Engine could be U/S so the dealer who serviced it send down a truck and a loan car.

Perhaps if you could be so good as to explain what more they could have done, and why the OP should be stomping off to court, and what exactly they would be sueing for?

I kind of see what you are saying but we spent a lot of time on the phone to the main dealer at home who denied any liability saying that it was impossible for the belt to be fitted incorrectly whereas the other garages hotly dispute this.
My summary, although long in script, does not represent the amount of effort that went into this matter. The initial VW independent garage diagnosed incorrect fitting of a belt, also noting that in their opinion the belt may not have been exchanged at all. If the service had been performed correctly we would have not incurred any additional expenses at all.
We had planned a nice week away but this was totally ruined. Oh and by the way, my Dad's car is used for a total of about 5 miles a week, so by the time he would have had an issue with the cam belt then the parts warranty would probably not have been valid.

Brooker_Dave

AndyD_OHD wrote: »

I kind of see what you are saying but we spent a lot of time on the phone to the main dealer at home who denied any liability saying that it was impossible for the belt to be fitted incorrectly whereas the other garages hotly dispute this.
My summary, although long in script, does not represent the amount of effort that went into this matter. The initial VW independent garage diagnosed incorrect fitting of a belt, also noting that in their opinion the belt may not have been exchanged at all. If the service had been performed correctly we would have not incurred any additional expenses at all.
We had planned a nice week away but this was totally ruined. Oh and by the way, my Dad's car is used for a total of about 5 miles a week, so by the time he would have had an issue with the cam belt then the parts warranty would probably not have been valid.

I'm not saying that the garage who did the service are no liable for their work, it's just the sue first ask questions later mentality of this forum won't really help you.

The problem for you though is that it's not your car, so any dispute is between your dad and the garage, it's just unfortunate that you happened to end up getting caught up in it and so far from home.

Good luck sorting it out anyway.

AndyD_OHD

Well that's families for you mate! And he's most likely the owner of a chunk of metal with a VW badge now as as far as I understand the engine is most probably bj0rked.

jeannieblue

AndyD_OHD wrote: »

Well that's families for you mate! And he's most likely the owner of a chunk of metal with a VW badge now as as far as I understand the engine is most probably bj0rked.

And either the garage or whoever made the parts and is to blame for the potentially b*ggered engine, will have to pay for the replacement - and your expenses I would imagine....

BD - I get your point about sueing etc... I hate that too, but it shouldn't be right that the OP is out of pocket, even he did borrow the car - that is irrelevant - he should not be out of pocket for something that genuinely was not his fault.

10past6

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

ie turning down the loaners insurance and instead making their own arrangments.

What :eek:

It's called shopping around, going by your post, something you've never done.

Hey Dave, do you always pay the first price quoted, if so, may be this is not the site for you :rotfl:

scheming_gypsy

10past6 wrote: »

What :eek:

It's called shopping around, going by your post, something you've never done.

Hey Dave, do you always pay the first price quoted, if so, may be this is not the site for you :rotfl:

What Dave seems to be saying, and correctly, is that the VW garage sent a car FREE with no insurance to pay but a £750 excess IF the OP crashed the car. the OP chose to put it on their Dad's insurance at the cost of £25 a week.
They're paying / paid £25 a week car insurance whereas using the garages insurance would result in a £750 payment IF the car was crashed or damaged. If it wasn't there'd be nothing to pay, so where is there to shop around?

AndyD_OHD

But I don't see why I should have to take a car with such an excess when the whole issue was most likely due to their incompetence initially, and causing the situation we are in at present. We also asked, if like car hire companies, we could pay a small fee to have the excess reduced. They replied with an emphatic NO! With an excess of £750, if some idiot (and there are plenty of them) bumps your car you could have an expensive time.

The whole situation arose because, according to the Cambridge VW dealership, the Lanarkshire Dealership had incompetently fitted the Cam Belt. If it had been fitted properly then we would have no need for the car they provided, or their insurance or the additional expense and inconvenience we suffered during our break .... not a relaxing one as we had hoped.

molerat

I think that what BD is getting at is that you have no contract with the garage. Your contract is with your father and he has supplied you with a faulty car. It is up to him to sort out your problems, reimburse you and claim his expenses from the dealer IYSWIM.

AndyD_OHD

OK thank you. So I guess we have no recourse then? A pensioner can't reimburse us. I thought the contract/warranty would cover the car irrespective of who would be driving it when something happens. But thanks.

markelock

the warranty will cover the car irrespective. the dealer is being difficult. Why would they not take the word of another dealer?

I would suggest this lowers the value of the brand, when they can't all operate at a certain level.

I would put money on their being a set level they all have to operate at, and then even, levels where they aspire to.

whilst providing a car is reasonable (legally they should put the owner in the position he would be in if the incident had not occured), adding in a different requirement (bigger car) changes things. £750 does not sound reasonable to me though.

I would suggest you call citizens advice, as it's not a figure that sounds normal to me, but of course that shouldn't make it automatically wrong.

Returning the part confuses me. if it's fitted incorrectly, does the damage done manifest itself in a particular way, different from if it were a faulty belt?