Car Repairs and Small Claims Court

Ital

Hi,

I'm considering taking my local garage to the Small Claims court for the following reasons. Although I've been to Small Claims before, for car repairs it doesnt seem so straight forward. Any advice will be appreciated.

Here's the story / letter I wrote to the garage, which they have ignored, also a second letter has been ignored:

---

Dear Sirs,

Regarding my Toyota Yaris. I'm concerned about the history of events detailed below.

1. My car developed vibration / shaking when breaking at all speeds.

2. 07/07/10 GARAGE £192.54 for work carried out to replace Front Brake Discs and Pads.

3. Shaking returned within three/four weeks and increased gradually.

4. Returned the car to GARAGE (not sure of exact date), was told you could not identify any shaking.

5. 28/09/10 GARAGE £49.94 for work carried out to replace O/S Front Tyre and Repair rear. You checked the brakes and Reading / Balance (confirmed OK).

6. Returned the car to GARAGE (not sure of exact date), you identified the shaking after a test drive on the M?? and supposedly repaired the vehicle under warranty.

7. Shaking returned within three/four weeks and increased gradually.

8. 04/12/10 GARAGE £155.15 for work carried out to replace O/S Outer CV Joint. Collected car, no difference, still shaking.

9. 14/12/10 DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION:

Detailed Break Test (Full Test). Result was N/S and O/S both failed on Grab/Jud.

Upon examination of the vehicle (even I could see the problem), they discovered worn discs, pads and tyres.

Work carried out to replace discs, pads, fluids, four tyres, balance and tracking £459.65

Car now in good working order, no shaking.

I have enclosed copies of DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION brake test, brake report and invoice.

I believe I'm entitled to refund in regards to points 2, 5 and 8.

At this stage I'm not seeking to recover the total cost of getting the vehicle repaired by DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION, I'm only claiming fees paid to GARAGE.

If you do not intend to refund, please provide the dates when my car was booked in, re I do not recall above.

I look forward to your reply within 7 days of receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely....

---

Thats it really, my second letter was just a follow up and warning of court action.

Thanks
Steve

isplumm

Ital wrote: »

Hi,

I'm considering taking my local garage to the Small Claims court for the following reasons. Although I've been to Small Claims before, for car repairs it doesnt seem so straight forward. Any advice will be appreciated.

Here's the story / letter I wrote to the garage, which they have ignored, also a second letter has been ignored:

---

Dear Sirs,

Regarding my Toyota Yaris. I'm concerned about the history of events detailed below.

1. My car developed vibration / shaking when breaking at all speeds.

2. 07/07/10 GARAGE £192.54 for work carried out to replace Front Brake Discs and Pads.

3. Shaking returned within three/four weeks and increased gradually.

4. Returned the car to GARAGE (not sure of exact date), was told you could not identify any shaking.

5. 28/09/10 GARAGE £49.94 for work carried out to replace O/S Front Tyre and Repair rear. You checked the brakes and Reading / Balance (confirmed OK).

6. Returned the car to GARAGE (not sure of exact date), you identified the shaking after a test drive on the M?? and supposedly repaired the vehicle under warranty.

7. Shaking returned within three/four weeks and increased gradually.

8. 04/12/10 GARAGE £155.15 for work carried out to replace O/S Outer CV Joint. Collected car, no difference, still shaking.

9. 14/12/10 DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION:

Detailed Break Test (Full Test). Result was N/S and O/S both failed on Grab/Jud.

Upon examination of the vehicle (even I could see the problem), they discovered worn discs, pads and tyres.

Work carried out to replace discs, pads, fluids, four tyres, balance and tracking £459.65

Car now in good working order, no shaking.

I have enclosed copies of DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION brake test, brake report and invoice.

I believe I'm entitled to refund in regards to points 2, 5 and 8.

At this stage I'm not seeking to recover the total cost of getting the vehicle repaired by DIFFERENT GARAGE FOR SECOND OPINION, I'm only claiming fees paid to GARAGE.

If you do not intend to refund, please provide the dates when my car was booked in, re I do not recall above.

I look forward to your reply within 7 days of receipt of this letter.

Yours sincerely....

---

Thats it really, my second letter was just a follow up and warning of court action.

Thanks
Steve

Steve .... did you send recorded ..... have you classed as letter before action - is that clear in letter?

Mark

pendulum

I think some of the detail is missing from that letter. It doesn't come across as professionally written so that may be why they ignored it.

Did the second garage state that the disks/pads were unlikely to have been changed 5 months ago when the first garage claimed to have changed them? Is the accusation that the work was not done at all, or just that the work they did failed to fix the problem which was causing increased wear on components and causing other problems?

The first garage gave you a new tyre on 28/9/10. I assume you visually confirmed this had been fitted. So why did the second garage give you 4 new tyres not even 3 months later? Was the tyre wearing down very quickly or do you think the tyre wasn't changed?

What did the second garage say was the ultimate cause for all the trouble - tracking (may explain the tyre wear), or something else? In the professional opinion of the second garage, do they think the first garage was negligent for not picking the problem up sooner?

When troubleshooting a fault you sometimes have to just keep swapping or renewing bits until you fix the problem. As a customer you still have to pay for this even if it turns out to not fix the problem, unless you can show the garage was negligent. From your letter it looks like work was done which turned out not to fix the problem, but no real proof of negligence.

You have explained what happened reasonably well but you haven't explained much about why you think you're entitled to a refund.

Ital

I sent both letters recorded delivery, but royalmail being royalmail have no record of the items being delivered, although I know the garage did receive the first letter. I'm still chasing royalmail for info, and will send the garage one last letter / all letters before submitting a claim.

>>Did the second garage state that the disks/pads were unlikely to have been changed 5 months ago when the first garage claimed to have changed them? Is the accusation that the work was not done at all, or just that the work they did failed to fix the problem which was causing increased wear on components and causing other problems?<<

I've not accussed the garage of anything yet, that can wait for court. I believe they changed the pads, but not the disks, which led to further wear, very quickly. Also, they admitted they had not tested the tracking after completing work.

I see your point(s). Although they admitted negligence by repairing the car under warranty?

My second letter states:

---

Dear Sirs,

Regarding my Toyota Yaris and my previous letter, received by you on the 31/12/10.

Thank you for your phone call 07/01/11, when you informed me, my car was repaired by yourselves under warranty on 01/10/10. You also mentioned you would contact the brakes suppliers and see what you could do.

Please refund the fees I paid to GARAGE within 14 days of receipt of this letter, cheque payable to: ?????????????.

If I do not receive a full refund I will take legal action to recover the outstanding amount including interest and all costs incurred, submitting my claim through the Court Service’s web site.

Yours sincerely

---

As the second Garage carried out identical work, that corrected the shaking, I believe the first Garage was negligent???

Thanks
Steve

Oopsadaisy

Just crack on and get the court papers issued [assuming you#ve done a Notice before action letter]....they tend ti sit up and take notice a bit more then.


MAke sure they are not a 'man of straw' ie that they have assets that the bailiffs can get hold of [car stock beng a good example].

Ital

Hi,

Not sure what you mean by a 'notice before action letter'? I've given them time enough and several threats I'll proceed to court.

I've sent one last warning and explained why I think I'm due a refund.

Thanks
Steve

oldagetraveller

Not trying to be a smart alec or spelling/grammar police but it might be worth you finding out the difference between breaking and braking/break and brake. If I were to receive your letter I would take it more seriously if you could be more consistent with these.;)

Ital

No need for an explaination - yawn.....

Steve

Oopsadaisy

Ital/Steve

Your gratitude underwhelms me.

I hope the garage wins.

Ital

I just don't see what contribution oldagetraveller has made to this thread, other than to try to be a 'smart alec or spelling/grammar police'.

Its a fact of life that some people can't spell correctly all the time, I'm one of them. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but fyi I'm 1. dyslexic and 2. I've been taking very strong pain killers for two weeks now and my brain is not working well.

If your only contribution is to pick wholes in other peoples threads, good luck to you. To imply I'm not grateful is absurd and to wish me to loose is very sad indeed. Oh well.

Steve

isplumm

Ital wrote: »

I just don't see what contribution oldagetraveller has made to this thread, other than to try to be a 'smart alec or spelling/grammar police'.

Its a fact of life that some people can't spell correctly all the time, I'm one of them. Not that I need to explain myself to you, but fyi I'm 1. dyslexic and 2. I've been taking very strong pain killers for two weeks now and my brain is not working well.

If your only contribution is to pick wholes in other peoples threads, good luck to you. To imply I'm not grateful is absurd and to wish me to loose is very sad indeed. Oh well.

Steve

Hi,
Oldagetraveller was trying to point out to you that letters with spelling mistakes tend to get ignored more .... that is all.

Mark