what are my rights re: garage work 6 months on

jennyc85

Hi everyone,

6 months ago I took my van to a small local garage for damaged suspension to be repaired (drove it off a high-curb).

Afterwards it felt a bit odd but not knowing much about vehicles I just assumed that was how it was supposed be..

Anyway.. today I took it for MOT. Following :money: advice I took it to a council fleet service centre (so no interest in failing it to make money on repairs)... They were shocked at how bad the suspension was! They could not fail it on this apparently (and thankfully for me ) but put it down as an advisory...

They told me that it is likely the part used was not suitable for a heavy vehicle like my van, and that it is so low at the front it could pretty much collapse at any point :eek:

I paid nearly £400 for the work 6 months ago... and my question is do I have any rights here??

Can I take it back and request them to replace it with a suitable part??

I remember them telling me that the Merecedes part would cost ££££ more than the part they used, which they claimed was as good anyway, so I went along with it.. which is what I am worried they will come back with as an excuse (that I agreed to non-genuine part). But surely it should still be fit for purpose??

I am willing to pay the difference between the cost of the part they used and a Mercedes part, but do you think I have the right for them to remove the old one and replace it without charging me labour?

Thanks very much..

Tilt

Something not right here me thinks. If the suspension can "collapse at any point" as they have told you, then they should of failed it as that could potentially be dangerous. So I think there must be a degree of exaggeration there.

As for the repairs 6 months ago, well you could go back armed with the advisory and see what the garage says but you may have to prove that the work was sub-standard at the time OR show that the wrong components were used. Had it been within 6 months, your case would of been a lot stronger.

Chopper_Read

The six month window shouldn't matter. If the wrong part was used and is unsuitable it was and will always be unsuitable wouldn't it?
Your problem with the garage maybe more of why didn't you bring it back sooner.

ILW

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The six month window shouldn't matter. If the wrong part was used and is unsuitable it was and will always be unsuitable wouldn't it?
Your problem with the garage maybe more of why didn't you bring it back sooner.

It was suitable enough to pass an MOT and the coice was given as to OEM or not.

jennyc85

Thanks for the replies..

With regard to why I didn't take it back sooner; Not knowing much about cars I didn't realise the extent of how bad it was until MOT man pointed it out..

And with the point about being given the choice of parts; I agree I went along with their suggestion of the cheaper part under my own free will.. but even so shouldn't it still be fit for purpose?? i.e. able to bear the load of the vehicle it is fitted on?

I gave the garage a call and explained the situation.. I remained polite & un-accusing.. they have suggested I bring the van in for them to have a look (2 weeks time).. fingers crossed they don't try and fob me off...

forgotmyname

Its lasted 6 months and passed an MOT test? Cant be that bad.

But without knowing whats bad how can people advise you?


Whats not right?

arcon5

Chopper_Read wrote: »

The six month window shouldn't matter. If the wrong part was used and is unsuitable it was and will always be unsuitable wouldn't it?
Your problem with the garage maybe more of why didn't you bring it back sooner.

Yet it does matter. If they ask for proof the law is on their side irrespective of your opinion.

Fortunately they don't seem to be a bad garage so far in that they have agreed to look at it

Chopper_Read

arcon5 wrote: »

Yet it does matter. If they ask for proof the law is on their side irrespective of your opinion.

Fortunately they don't seem to be a bad garage so far in that they have agreed to look at it

It's either suitable or it isn't. The six month window refers to the onus being on the seller to prove it wasn't an issue at the point of sale.

For example, if a set of shocks are not rated for the weight of a van. How can it be argued after 6 months that they were suitable when fitted?

Tilt

The 'six month rule' as you put it simply means that after 6 months the onus shifts to the consumer. If the OP can show that the components are those that were fitted by the garage then there isn't a problem, the garage must sort it.

Still don't understand how it passed an MOT if it was that bad.

colino

OP, you have to be much more specific about what is wrong with your moon buggy and please don't confuse the knowledge of a council MOT tester (who didn't fail your "shocking" suspension) with a skilled professional before embarrassing yourself complaining to anyone.

securityguy

Chopper_Read wrote: »

It's either suitable or it isn't. The six month window refers to the onus being on the seller to prove it wasn't an issue at the point of sale.

For example, if a set of shocks are not rated for the weight of a van. How can it be argued after 6 months that they were suitable when fitted?

But the part is by definition suitable: it passed an MoT. So it was suitable then and it's suitable now. The claim is that the vehicle was repaired with a part that wasn't strong enough. The MoT tester has an absolute right to fail a car for precisely this reason:

2. A suspension component with an inappropriate repair, or a modification which has seriously weakened the component.

Either the part is suitable (it passed an MoT) or it isn't (in which case, why did the tester fail it?) The tester did the OP no favours in passing the vehicle, because had he failed it on the grounds of an inappropriate repair the garage would have been liable no matter how long ago the work was done. But as things stand, the OP hasn't really got a leg to stand on.