Kwit Fit nightmare

bigjl

OP, yes the quote was expensive, but an MOT just means the brakes aren't currently leaking and that they can stop the car evenly and within the requirements, it is not a certificate that guarantees roadworthyness.

Nice to see that you view the rest of the countries safety with such high regard.

No matter what you think, you SHOULDN'T have driven with faulty brakes.

I think you will find that you have actually broken a few laws.

I expect that you will greet this message in the same arogant way you have the rest of the other posts that don't say you are the victim, Kwik Fit are thieves etc, etc.

The simple FACT is that people like you kill people every day on the UK roads, this is simply the truth.

And the reason that Kwik Fit quoted the way they did is that if they just replaced the damaged hose or whatever was leaking you would have the opinion that they are now responsible for any brake related issue that the car presents with until the car is sold to somebody else.

Therefore as they, and almost every other garage in the UK, have dealt with people like you before they take a belt and braces attitude to brakes.

I would think that the brakes are almost certainly shagged anyway, you do understand that they are a consumable don't you?

bigjl

Stephen_Leak wrote: »

One could argue that the OP's actions in continuing to drive the car were covered by the defence of "duress of circumstance", caused by KwikFit's well-known policy of corporate criminality.

Just don't repeat the error and take it into National Tyres & Autocare.

I think you will find that KwikFit produced a quote that was guaranteed to fix almost any problem with the cars brakes.

This would not be cheap due to the fact that brakes aren't cheap to replace when you do discs and pads, and also change hoses, pipes etc.

I think you will also find that the OP signed to say they don't want the car fixed, at least that is what I did when I ran a garage.

Nice to see you are happy to blame KwikFit for the OP driving with known faulty brakes.

Anybody that knowingly drives with faulty brakes is a halfwit, simple.

The fact that she actually had AA membership beggars belief.

But when I had a rear wheel cylinder throw in the towel years ago the AA man went and bought one, a set of rear shoes and fitted them beside the road for a small consideration, once the brakes went the car was not going to be driven by me.

But then I have always considered safety to be a priority over personal convenience.

All this rubbish about an experienced driver being able to cope with dodgy brakes is when they go pop when driving along, so that you can get the car slowed down safely, not so you can get it checked, not like the quote and then decide to continue on your journey.

Harry_Flashman

bigjl wrote: »

But then I have always considered safety to be a priority over personal convenience.

All this rubbish about an experienced driver being able to cope with dodgy brakes is when they go pop when driving along, so that you can get the car slowed down safely, not so you can get it checked, not like the quote and then decide to continue on your journey.

What a little angel you are

If only we could all find the time and money to be so perfect.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

bigjl wrote: »

OP, yes the quote was expensive, but an MOT just means the brakes aren't currently leaking and that they can stop the car evenly and within the requirements, it is not a certificate that guarantees roadworthyness.

Nice to see that you view the rest of the countries safety with such high regard.

No matter what you think, you SHOULDN'T have driven with faulty brakes.

I think you will find that you have actually broken a few laws.

I expect that you will greet this message in the same arogant way you have the rest of the other posts that don't say you are the victim, Kwik Fit are thieves etc, etc.

The simple FACT is that people like you kill people every day on the UK roads, this is simply the truth.

And the reason that Kwik Fit quoted the way they did is that if they just replaced the damaged hose or whatever was leaking you would have the opinion that they are now responsible for any brake related issue that the car presents with until the car is sold to somebody else.

Therefore as they, and almost every other garage in the UK, have dealt with people like you before they take a belt and braces attitude to brakes.

I would think that the brakes are almost certainly shagged anyway, you do understand that they are a consumable don't you?

bank holiday blues has kicked in.

at the end of the day weve ALL driven a vehicle that had some mechanical problem that could potentially be life threatening without thinking about it THATS FACT.

worn tyres for example not past wear indicator but has a disadvantage in braking distances in the damp and wet youve had them checked and tyre fitter said theres 500 miles in them yet but yet people decide to go with advice given and not change them anyway.

not topped oil up and siezed engine whilst driving could potentially threaten someones life if not the driver other road users especially on a motor way.

so lets not single out a person, and be judgemental, the OP IS rectifying the problem, most if not all of us would DRIVE away from that quote because lets face it YOU WOULDNT HAVE A FLAT BED RECOVER IT AND YOU PAY FOR THE PRIVALADGE.

do you call your brake down everytime your brakes are low or something like air is in it? it bet you drive home sit it on the drive
and then look at it then bleed them or trouble shoot them. so lets not stomp on the moral high ground this is not what MSE is for.

bigjl

No, actually I have never driven a car knowlingly in an unroadworthy condition.

If I have a safety related issue then I pull over to a safe place and call the AA.

Not rocket science is it.

I am not taking the moral high ground, there is no moral high ground.

Driving an unsafe car further than is needed to ensure the occupants are safe is stupid and the wrong thing to do.

I take it you defend drink driver aswell?

After all they needed to get home aswell.

There is no excuse for ignoring safety, NONE.

The OP says she later called the AA, she could have done this at any time.

It is what normal people do, your car is unsafe, get it towed or park it up and take a Taxi or call a friend to pick you up.

Standard practice in the Ambualnce Service, any problem that is in any way safety related means the vehicle is low loaded to the fitters. No excuses.

I did once have a safety related issue and my AA had long since ran out as I was a skint student, I had to join at he side of the road, but didn't drive in an unsafe vehicle.

Moral high ground?

Don't make me laugh.

What would you done if this person had been unable to stop as you crossed a pedestrian crossing with your kids, I know what you would do and say, but are you honest enough to admit it?

I will give you a small clue, it wouldn't include defending them to the Traffic Coppers that turned up to investigate the RTC.

Can just see this being the way the conversation would go, "Not her/his fault Officer, they had to get home didn't they?"

Hammyman

casseus wrote: »

oh for petes sake, no one in their right mind drive stupidly knowing a braking problem is before them with their car.

the OP wouldt of done 60 MPH in a 30 zone knowing that the brakes are faulty.

she would of taken her time, kept her distances, and extended her braking distances, and kept her speed down commonsense would of told OP that.

The master cylinder had failed. The car was completely incapable of being brought to anything more than a gentle stop even from 10MPH no matter how hard you stamped on the brakes or if you pumped the pedal. It was incapable of even having to brake moderately hard. The brakes were completely incapable of stopping the wheel rotating. THE OP COULD HAVE HAD HER FOOT FLAT TO THE FLOOR AND YOU COULD HAVE JACKED UP THE CAR AND STILL ROTATED THE WHEEL QUITE EASILY WITH ONE HAND - THATS HOW INEFFECTIVE THE BRAKES WOULD HAVE BEEN.ON A 1 IN 8 HILL THE BRAKES WOULD HAVE BEEN INCAPABLE OF HOLDING THE VEHICLE STATIONARY

GET IT NOW?

Dave101t

funny how its only women who have these problems with kwik fit.....

jim22

Would anybody have taken this £700 quote? Could a full renewal of the braking system amount to that much on a common car? I've bought cars with a full MOT for well less than that.

A master cylinder on my saxo is around £60 new not including fitting. You could try the scrapyard approach (some guarantee the parts) but I would be interested to know what the mechanics on here think of that type of used part.

bigjl

Actually £700 isn't that bad.

She said it needs discs, pads, shoes, drums and pipes.

Front Discs £100 a pair
Front pads £50 a set

Rear Drums £125 a set
Rear Shoes £60 a set
Rear Wheel Cylinders £40 a pair.

This is before we even consider anything like labour.

I assume they also mentioned the master cylinder/


This isn't about KwikFit it is about the fact the OP thinks a car shouldn't need £700 spent on it so soon after an MOT, she has then read unsubstantiated drivel written by those that know nothing complaining about KwikFit.

Anybody that has worked in the motor trade at the lower end, rather than main dealer or fleet motors that is, will adopt the same attitude to quoting repairs.

If anybody thinks a garage as large as KwikFit would quote for front pads only is living in dream land.

Or more likely has never had to deal with the average punter these days.

The term, Internet Know All, springs to mind.

I have known several blokes that will give a punter they think is going to be a pain in the harris what we used to term a "f**k off quote", a quote so high that you could ensure there was no chance of comebacks if the job was booked, but more likely the punter told you to "f**k off".

Bye, bye, take your headache somewhere else.

I would also make them sign a disclaimer that the car shouldn't be driven, if the car was really dangerous I would phone the old bill. They would have a chance to nick the halfwit puttig other safety in danger, Simples.

marksandsparx

bigjl wrote: »

Actually £700 isn't that bad.

She said it needs discs, pads, shoes, drums and pipes.

Front Discs £100 a pair
Front pads £50 a set

Rear Drums £125 a set
Rear Shoes £60 a set
Rear Wheel Cylinders £40 a pair.

This is before we even consider anything like labour.

I assume they also mentioned the master cylinder/


This isn't about KwikFit it is about the fact the OP thinks a car shouldn't need £700 spent on it so soon after an MOT, she has then read unsubstantiated drivel written by those that know nothing complaining about KwikFit.

Anybody that has worked in the motor trade at the lower end, rather than main dealer or fleet motors that is, will adopt the same attitude to quoting repairs.

If anybody thinks a garage as large as KwikFit would quote for front pads only is living in dream land.

Or more likely has never had to deal with the average punter these days.

The term, Internet Know All, springs to mind.

I have known several blokes that will give a punter they think is going to be a pain in the harris what we used to term a "f**k off quote", a quote so high that you could ensure there was no chance of comebacks if the job was booked, but more likely the punter told you to "f**k off".

Bye, bye, take your headache somewhere else.

I would also make them sign a disclaimer that the car shouldn't be driven, if the car was really dangerous I would phone the old bill. They would have a chance to nick the halfwit puttig other safety in danger, Simples.

Can I start to do your repairs please!???