Good Garage Scheme... Help!!!

Jonny1275

Hi all, could use a bit of advise with the Good Garage Scheme…

In May this year I had my mot done at a garage I had used before and who was a member of the good garage scheme. After going over what needed doing to the car I left the garage after being advised that the repair costs would not exceed £350. I collected the car three days later and was given a bill for £315, I drove the car away and all was ok. Shortly afterwards the exhaust stating rattling quite loudly and then scrapped when I drove over a speed bump. I returned the car to the garage and when it was lifted on the ramp myself and the garage owner noticed that the exhaust backbox that had been replaced was twisted and had been help in place by a plastic cable tie?!?!? I complained about this and asked the garage to rectify the problem and left the car with them. When I collected it they advised they had secured the exhaust and then tried charging me £10 for my troubles without even producing an invoice. I left the garage without paying as the work should have been covered under the guarantee. A short while afterwards the problems began again and after having a good look at it myself I found that the exhaust mounting rubbers were all worn and clearly had not been replaced when the exhaust made been replaced. I returned to the garage and they advised they were busy that day and asked if I could return the following day, when I went back the day after they refused to look at the car and after the conversation became heated their mechanic attempted to assault me! I contacted the good garage scheme and the fun began… they said they had suspended the garage from their scheme and agreed to mediate, I advised that I had been quoted £88 to repair the exhaust properly and after a few days the Good Garage Scheme phoned to say that the garage had offered to forward a cheque for £88 to cover the repairs. I said I would agree to this if the cheque arrived within a day or so and I incurred no further costs because of the incident.


The cheque from the garage finally arrived 5 days after by which time I’d had to park the car up for 4 days as the exhaust was now dragging on the floor. I then went through a right carry on getting it repaired and decided that I shouldn’t be out of pocket as the garage should have performed the work correctly in the first place. I contacted the garage explaining the costs I’d incurred and advised them that if they didn’t wish to address these costs I would proceed with court action. The garage replied with a letter saying that they had made the payment as a goodwill gesture with no admission of liability and that I had agreed to a full and final settlement, and that if this went to court the Good Garage Scheme would provide impartial mediatory evidence which proves this. I immediately called the Good Garage Scheme and after the gentleman who I had dealt with would not take my call, I emailed him politely explaining that the conditional agreement we had reached had been by phone and that for one, I had not been advised that the calls were being recorded, and that the agreement we had reached had been based on the swift arrival of the payment and my not incurring any further costs. He replied by email that he didn’t wish to discuss things further but he would be happy to discuss it in court.

I contacted Fortes (the company who run the good garage scheme) directly yesterday and obtained the email address of a manager who oversees the ggs, he replied stating he was happy to let the ggs continue dealing with this matter. I replied back that the ggs had not answered my request for copies of this alleged ‘impartial evidence’ and requested either he either produce copies of this evidence or supply me with an address where I can send a subject access request.

As of yet I’ve had no reply…… any ideas?

Ps… funnily enough, the Good Garage Scheme also failed to publish the reframed negative feedback I life about the garage…

worried_jim

I think you can read all about the good garage scheme here-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2790144

edit- OP you've already posted this here.

red_eye

Jonny1275 wrote: »

Hi all, could use a bit of advise with the Good Garage Scheme…

In May this year I had my mot done at a garage I had used before and who was a member of the good garage scheme. After going over what needed doing to the car I left the garage after being advised that the repair costs would not exceed £350. I collected the car three days later and was given a bill for £315, I drove the car away and all was ok. Shortly afterwards the exhaust stating rattling quite loudly and then scrapped when I drove over a speed bump. I returned the car to the garage and when it was lifted on the ramp myself and the garage owner noticed that the exhaust backbox that had been replaced was twisted and had been help in place by a plastic cable tie?!?!? I complained about this and asked the garage to rectify the problem and left the car with them. When I collected it they advised they had secured the exhaust and then tried charging me £10 for my troubles without even producing an invoice. I left the garage without paying as the work should have been covered under the guarantee. A short while afterwards the problems began again and after having a good look at it myself I found that the exhaust mounting rubbers were all worn and clearly had not been replaced when the exhaust made been replaced. I returned to the garage and they advised they were busy that day and asked if I could return the following day, when I went back the day after they refused to look at the car and after the conversation became heated their mechanic attempted to assault me! I contacted the good garage scheme and the fun began… they said they had suspended the garage from their scheme and agreed to mediate, I advised that I had been quoted £88 to repair the exhaust properly and after a few days the Good Garage Scheme phoned to say that the garage had offered to forward a cheque for £88 to cover the repairs. I said I would agree to this if the cheque arrived within a day or so and I incurred no further costs because of the incident.


The cheque from the garage finally arrived 5 days after by which time I’d had to park the car up for 4 days as the exhaust was now dragging on the floor. I then went through a right carry on getting it repaired and decided that I shouldn’t be out of pocket as the garage should have performed the work correctly in the first place. I contacted the garage explaining the costs I’d incurred and advised them that if they didn’t wish to address these costs I would proceed with court action. The garage replied with a letter saying that they had made the payment as a goodwill gesture with no admission of liability and that I had agreed to a full and final settlement, and that if this went to court the Good Garage Scheme would provide impartial mediatory evidence which proves this. I immediately called the Good Garage Scheme and after the gentleman who I had dealt with would not take my call, I emailed him politely explaining that the conditional agreement we had reached had been by phone and that for one, I had not been advised that the calls were being recorded, and that the agreement we had reached had been based on the swift arrival of the payment and my not incurring any further costs. He replied by email that he didn’t wish to discuss things further but he would be happy to discuss it in court.

I contacted Fortes (the company who run the good garage scheme) directly yesterday and obtained the email address of a manager who oversees the ggs, he replied stating he was happy to let the ggs continue dealing with this matter. I replied back that the ggs had not answered my request for copies of this alleged ‘impartial evidence’ and requested either he either produce copies of this evidence or supply me with an address where I can send a subject access request.

As of yet I’ve had no reply…… any ideas?

Ps… funnily enough, the Good Garage Scheme also failed to publish the reframed negative feedback I life about the garage…

Forget good garage scam.

With IMI you have to pay and pass a test to become accredited
http://www.motor.org.uk/accreditation/automotive-technician-accreditation-ata.html

Jonny1275

Following this carry on I wouldn’t recommend the good garage scheme to my worst enemy..

The issue is the garage have replied to my complaint claiming that the good garage scheme are willing to provide evidence that I agreed to a full and final settlement. I involved the good garage scheme at the outset but only agreed to put the matter to bed if the payment for the exhaust repair was received overnight as the car was not useable due to the exhaust nearly hitting the floor. I was not given anything to sign, and even though I asked the chap at the good garage scheme to document the details of our conversation into an email, this never arrived. Furthermore when the cheque from the garage did finally arrive it was not accompanied by a letter, the envelope simply contained the cheque.

The garage have said in their response that the payment was a goodwill gesture and was not an admission of liability and that I agreed to all this when I cashed it.

As much as I relish the thought of taking the garage to court and letting a judge decide compensation, and the added bonus of publicly tearing a few strips off the good garage scheme, I just want to be sure I’m in the right about not being aware that this payment constituted what the garage are now saying it did.

Silk

So lets try to understand this better ..

9 months ago you took your car for MOT repairs, part of those repairs were to fit a new back box.

Did they charge you for new mountings or were they a failure on the MOT ?

You then took the car back due to poor fitting and they did a refit ...possibly with a new mounting which you refused to pay for ???

You then examined the car yourself and in your judgment decided the rest of the mountings were worn ???

The garage refused to relook at the car (not surprising after walking out without paying last time !!!)

You contacted the GGS telling them you have been quoted £88 for the repair, the GGS then contacted the garage who in turn agreed to send you a cheque for the £88 you quoted.

The Cheque was duly received and cashed by you and assume the exhaust repaired.

So why is it now 9 months later that you want something else ???

Jonny1275

Silk wrote: »

So lets try to understand this better ..

9 months ago you took your car for MOT repairs, part of those repairs were to fit a new back box.

Did they charge you for new mountings or were they a failure on the MOT ?

You then took the car back due to poor fitting and they did a refit ...possibly with a new mounting which you refused to pay for ???

You then examined the car yourself and in your judgment decided the rest of the mountings were worn ???

The garage refused to relook at the car (not surprising after walking out without paying last time !!!)

You contacted the GGS telling them you have been quoted £88 for the repair, the GGS then contacted the garage who in turn agreed to send you a cheque for the £88 you quoted.

The Cheque was duly received and cashed by you and assume the exhaust repaired.

So why is it now 9 months later that you want something else ???

Here goes…

May… cars goes in for mot, it fails, garage advise that repairs will be a maximum of £355, I give the ok for them to crack on and leave the car with them for three days. I pick the car up they charge me £315

Shortly after I notice the exhaust is rattling and then I feel it scrape when passing over a speed bump on my street, I’ve had the car a year and it’s never done that before, I look under the car and the exhaust is hanging down well below where it should sit in the heatshield

August… I take the car to the garage, the owner puts it on the ramp and asks ‘who on earth fitted that?’ as the exhaust is twisted and the back box is held in place by plastic cable ties. After telling him that his mechanic fitted it he agrees to sort it the following day so I go back to the garage the day after and leave the car with him. When I go to pick it up he says he’s sorted it and then trys charging me a tenner, I politely advise that it’s covered by the guarantee and should have been done right in the first place

Late September… I start having the same problems and jack the car up and have a look. When the garage had the car back in they didn’t replace the rubber mounts that should have been replaced to begin with (3 x £1.14) they simply twisted the exhaust and applied a bit of weld to it. I called at an ATS near me and asked them to have a look, they advised that the rubber mounts should have been replaced when the exhaust was fitted and advised that the car should not have passed it’s retest as the exhaust was not correctly supported, hence the rattling.

November... I returned to the garage and they very politely asked me to call back the day after as there was not a ramp free. I returned the following day(another trip out) and they refused to look at the car, I advised them of what ATS had told me and their mechanic became aggressive and tried going for me. I left the premises and called the police, who then investigated but advised they could not bring charges as the incident has occurred in the office with no witnesses present.

I then contacted the good garage scheme on 7th November, they offered to mediate and contacted the garage. I advised the good garage scheme that the exhaust had fallen to such a level that the car was unsafe to use and I risked damaging I further if I continued using the car. The garage responded to the ggs on the 13th November and following their discussion the garage offered to forward the payment of £88 to repair the exhaust. I in turn advised the ggs that if the payment arrived without haste (overnight) and I could return the car to working in order I will leave the matter at that. The cheque finally arrived on the 17th November by which time I had been without use of my car for 4 days, I don’t know if you have kids but if you do you’ll understand how much of a pain it is and how costly it is trying to arrange journeys without a car, eg school, after school clubs, shopping ect.

On the 17th I set off to cash the cheque so I could get the repairs done, two minutes down the street and the exhaust clipped a speed bump and separated the joint which the garage had tried to weld, this led to the car screaming like a wounded tiger and the exhaust hanging further down. I ended up having to pay a mechanic to come to the house on the 18th November and do the repairs on site, which cost a great deal more than £88.

After sitting down on the Sunday night and working out how much hassle and cost had been involved because of the exhaust I decided that the garage could cover the costs as none of this would have occurred if they had fit the exhaust correctly in the first place. I sent a letter to the garage and copied it to the good garage scheme. The garage didn’t reply so I sent a pre court action letter, they replied to this stating that the ggs would provide material evidence showing that I accepted the £88 as a goodwill gesture that did not accept liability and was a full and final settlement of my complaint.

I in turn contacted the good garage scheme and asked what evidence the garage were referring to as the agreement had been reached by phone with no letters sent or received, and I carefully explained to the ggs that if the payment arrived overnight and allowed me to have the car repaired without haste I would then cease any action.

The ggs have refused to provide copies of the material evidence the garage has referred to and have today given me an address to send a subject access request to, however I’m not going to bother, I’ll let it go to court and let them try and show their hand there.

Bottom line is the garage had a budget of £355 to do this work, if they had simply replaced the brackets (3 x £1.14) when they fit the exhaust this hassle would not have occurred.

I hope this makes it a bit easier for you to understand…. And god forbid, I hope you’re not the district judge that will be hearing this case haha

Silk

It's like reading War and Peace :rotfl:
However being as you took the time to reply in detail I'll return the favour

Jonny1275 wrote: »

May… cars goes in for mot, it fails, garage advise that repairs will be a maximum of £355, I give the ok for them to crack on and leave the car with them for three days. I pick the car up they charge me £315

Good start £40 under quote ...however you don't say whether the car failed on exhaust mountings and whether they were supposed to be replaced ?

Jonny1275 wrote: »

Shortly after I notice the exhaust is rattling and then I feel it scrape when passing over a speed bump on my street.............August… I take the car to the garage, the owner puts it on the ramp and asks ‘who on earth fitted that?’ as the exhaust is twisted and the back box is held in place by plastic cable ties.

So rather than take it back when you noticed, instead you drove the car for 3 or 4 months with it bashing the exhaust over speed bumps :T

Jonny1275 wrote: »

Late September… I start having the same problems and jack the car up and have a look. When the garage had the car back in they didn’t replace the rubber mounts that should have been replaced to begin with (3 x £1.14) they simply twisted the exhaust and applied a bit of weld to it. I called at an ATS near me and asked them to have a look, they advised that the rubber mounts should have been replaced when the exhaust was fitted and advised that the car should not have passed it’s retest as the exhaust was not correctly supported, hence the rattling.

So another couple of months later, again after driving the car with the exhaust taking a hammering over speed bumps stressing the mountings Derren Brown from ATS has the ability to see back into the past 5 months earlier enough to claim that the car left the garage with an MOT and an exhaust that wasn't supported correctly :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Which begs the question why on earth did you not ask the ATS guru to fit the 3x £1.14 mountings whilst it was up on the ramp and how come ATS agreed to you driving off the premises without the exhaust being supported if it wasn't roadworthy ????

Jonny1275 wrote: »

November... I returned to the garage and they very politely asked me to call back the day after as there was not a ramp free. I returned the following day(another trip out) and they refused to look at the car, I advised them of what ATS had told me and their mechanic became aggressive and tried going for me. I left the premises and called the police, who then investigated but advised they could not bring charges as the incident has occurred in the office with no witnesses present.

So yet another 2 months of driving the car with the exhaust getting a bashing over speed bumps, 7 months after the MOT you finaly take the car back to the garage, based on your so called ATS expert you accuse them of supplying a dodgy MOT and not fitting the exhoust correctly. I can just imagine that conversation and reaction :rotfl:

Jonny1275 wrote: »

I then contacted the good garage scheme on 7th November, they offered to mediate and contacted the garage. I advised the good garage scheme that the exhaust had fallen to such a level that the car was unsafe to use and I risked damaging I further if I continued using the car. The garage responded to the ggs on the 13th November and following their discussion the garage offered to forward the payment of £88 to repair the exhaust. I in turn advised the ggs that if the payment arrived without haste (overnight) and I could return the car to working in order I will leave the matter at that. The cheque finally arrived on the 17th November by which time I had been without use of my car for 4 days

So the garage due to mediation, that you asked for with the GGS, agreed to pay you the £88 you asked for. No doubt after receiving instruction of the agreement probably on 14th it was received swiftly enough for most people on the 17th only 3 days later.
How come all of a sudden after driving round for 7 months clattering the speed bumps you suddenly decide not to risk it anymore :rotfl:

Jonny1275 wrote: »

I don’t know if you have kids but if you do you’ll understand how much of a pain it is and how costly it is trying to arrange journeys without a car, eg school, after school clubs, shopping ect.

As it happens I do, but it's strange that in April, on your N Power thread (another compensation claim) you imply that you don't have any kids ????

Jonny1275 wrote: »

On the 17th I set off to cash the cheque so I could get the repairs done, two minutes down the street and the exhaust clipped a speed bump and separated the joint which the garage had tried to weld, this led to the car screaming like a wounded tiger and the exhaust hanging further down. I ended up having to pay a mechanic to come to the house on the 18th November and do the repairs on site, which cost a great deal more than £88.

It was your decision to drive the car over speed bumps risking the damage, as you had the previous 7 months which shows the folly of not addressing the problems when you had chance and before the damage was done.

Jonny1275 wrote: »

After sitting down on the Sunday night and working out how much hassle and cost had been involved because of the exhaust I decided that the garage could cover the costs as none of this would have occurred if they had fit the exhaust correctly in the first place. I sent a letter to the garage and copied it to the good garage scheme. The garage didn’t reply so I sent a pre court action letter, they replied to this stating that the ggs would provide material evidence showing that I accepted the £88 as a goodwill gesture that did not accept liability and was a full and final settlement of my complaint.

Firstly, the costs involved were of your own doing, had you not driven the car for over 7 months clouting the speed bumps the damage would not have occured.
Secondly, you chose to mediate through the GGS and asked for £88 which the garage honoured and you accepted.
Thirdly, going by the response from the garage to the LBA, it is highly likely that the offer agreement by the garage to GGS would have been without prejudice.

Jonny1275 wrote: »

I in turn contacted the good garage scheme and asked what evidence the garage were referring to as the agreement had been reached by phone with no letters sent or received, and I carefully explained to the ggs that if the payment arrived overnight and allowed me to have the car repaired without haste I would then cease any action.

What are you talking about ??? You've already had your car repaired and banked the cheque ?????
Just beacause you dealt with GGS over the phone does not mean thats how they communicated with the garage

Jonny1275 wrote: »

The ggs have refused to provide copies of the material evidence the garage has referred to and have today given me an address to send a subject access request to, however I’m not going to bother, I’ll let it go to court and let them try and show their hand there.

Are you serious ??? You were contemplating using the FOIA and DPA to obtain documents relating to a broken exhaust :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
If you take it to Court all you have is circumstantial and the very minimum you will need is expert opinion from an accredited engineer. This will not only be expensive but impossible as any evidence of incorrect fitting or faulty parts etc. have long since gone.

Jonny1275 wrote: »

Bottom line is the garage had a budget of £355 to do this work, if they had simply replaced the brackets (3 x £1.14) when they fit the exhaust this hassle would not have occurred.

Hindsight is a wonerful thing
That may or may not have solved the problem, who's to know ? in the garage's opinion they wern't needed at the time
However maybe you could also say you would have saved yourself some hassle if you had allowed ATS to renew the brackets for the 3 x £1.14 way back in September.

Jonny1275 wrote: »

I hope this makes it a bit easier for you to understand…. And god forbid, I hope you’re not the district judge that will be hearing this case haha

Yes it does thanks, and yes if it was me I'd be kicking it out :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

fivetide

silk makes some excellent points.

For me, the issue was there in September, identified and could have been fixed with the cost claimed back.

It seems you carried on driving the car until November when it finally failed so that's all of October plus whatever weeks either side.

I'm sure that would be taken into account.

Jonny1275

Silk… thanks for your detailed reply, please accept my sincere apologies for it reading like war & peace :rotfl:unfortunately this is just the way the matter has dragged on..

To fill in a few blanks, when I had the mot done I was living at my address, shortly after I moved in with my girlfriend who lives 20 miles away, hence the kiddies journeys and increased travel to get to the garage…

To address the points you raised…

The car failed the mot due to a small hole in the exhaust back box, this was replaced but the rubber mounts were not replaced, but it was clearly evident to me, the garage owner, and the chap at ATS that they should have been replaced. VOSA state that the ‘overall security of the exhaust should be assessed’, the exhaust clearly was not supported correctly by the rubber mounts as the mechanic had put the cable ties in place to support the broken mounts, as the exhaust had never rattled before it begs the question of whether the mechanic broke these mounts when removing the old back box.

I took the car back to the garage at the first available opportunity after the problem presented itself. The garage owner, NOT the mechanic who had done the work, looked at the car for me and agreed to rectify it. He had always been fair so I left the car with him.

When the problem presented itself again and I’d looked at it myself, I then went to the local ATS. The chap explained the problem but refused to try and remount the exhaust as it had been welded and to remount it he would have to remove the weld, thus damaging the pipe. He advised the only way to correct it was to replace the back box. So you can understand, as the backbox was not sitting in the correct position because of the damaged mounts, it had been twisted to fit and then welded in place, unfortunately due to the force of the centre pipe trying to twist back to it’s natural position it was only a matter of time before the whole system twisted out of place. Also as I’m sure aware, an mot is based on the condition of the car on THAT day, as the car was simply retested whoever passed it will have simply glanced at the new backbox and ticked it off rather than inspect it properly.

Again, I travelled to the garage at the first available opportunity hoping they would be free to look at it straight away. They were very polite and said they didn’t have a ramp free and could I call back the day after, if they’d told me to do one I could have started dealing with it then instead of having a second wasted journey. To address your other point, you can’t drive anywhere these days without going over speed bumps but you can creep over them if you’re aware your car isn’t 100%.

On the Saturday I had no alternative than to drive the car to ATS so it could be repaired, I had been without use of it for 4 days and desperately needed it back on the road. The chain of events that followed cost me a great deal more than the garage had provided for the repair, and as I’m unfortunately out of work at the moment I decided they could foot the cost of the total bill.

As for the Good Garage Scheme, the reason for my thread, I made a conditional agreement with them to not take any legal action if the garage provided the funds to affect the repair and these funds were received asap. The garage has slipped up and admitted in their letter that they didn’t even dispatch the cheque for three days, even though I know they were well aware the car was out of use due to the problem.

Any correspondence that went on between the garage and the Good Garage Scheme when arranging a resolution is immaterial, I was not presented with any written documentation about the amount being offered, was not advised it was a goodwill gesture or that it was not an admission of liability, I can only revert to the conversation I had with the Good Garage Scheme in which I advised I would accept the offer IF it arrived overnight and I incurred no further costs because of the problem. As for an engineers report, this won’t be necessary as the work was carried out so the car could obtain an MOT, and the placement of the plastic cable ties clearly showed that the exhaust was not supported correctly by the exhaust mounts,

The issue with the good garage scheme is that they have advised that they will provide material evidence of the so called settlement, when I have requested copies of this as I’m struggling to understand what they are on about as I never signed anything and didn’t receive the email I requested detailing our conversation, they have refused to supply anything. It would have be nice to appear in court knowing what they are going to produce but I’m sure it will be much more fun advising a district judge that despite several requests the independent mediator not only has tried retrospectively saying I agreed to something that I did not, but also that he refused to forward documents that he has clearly forwarded to the garage

If I had been in the financial position to have ats do the work when they looked at the car, I would have done and would have bypassed the Good Garage Scheme, unfortunately sometimes when you don’t have the funds available you have to take what you can.

I’m filling my courts papers on Monday and will be sure to jot down on here how it turns out