Garage has wrecked my car - and charged me for it

aaj123

I have just gone through a nightmare experience with a garage for which I would most appreciate any advice:

My 2005 registration Automatic car (bought by me an year ago) had a minor problem of needing a bit of accelerator to get going from rest after putting the gear into D or R. Apart from this, it was in full working condition and did not give me any issues. I used it to commute nearly every working day. I had received a RAC platinum warranty from the dealer who had sold me the car which was valid for an year and in theory covered up to £2000 of repairs.

When there was a week to go before the expiry of my warranty, I thought of showing them minor problem to a garage so that they can do a diagnosis and then see if RAC can cover the repair. In my mind, if the repair was not covered or proved potentially expensive, I was happy to just pay for diagnosis and take back the car.

And so I left the car with a local garage, told them about the warranty and asked them to diagnose the issue and talk to RAC.

Later that day, the garage just calls me and says 'Hey btw did your oil light ever come on in the dashboard occasionally?' I just replied 'perhaps yes once or twice and then I would top up oil'. Again I reiterated that this wasn't really the issue I brought the car in for but I would be happy if he could give any advice if he has any about the oil light. Seemed a casual one minute conversation and I forgot about it.

Then he calls later and says the gearbox ECU may need reprogramming and could cost £800 odd. Said he spoke to RAC and they would send an assessor down. Then calls later again and says RAC has asked for some more tests to be done on the engine and do I authorise these which may involve some stripping fown of engine. Again unsuspectingly, I said go ahead thinking RAC would have suggested something that is reasonable. Then a day later he tells me RAC assessor came down and has asked for more stripping down of the engine. Again I say fine simply because I don't suspect anything fishy. Then a day later RAC engineer comes again and then garage calls and says RAC have refused the claim. I then spoke to RAC myself and asked them why they refused. They emailed me the two technical reports given by their assessors. On reading these, the first alarm bells rang as they seemed to be assessing an issue completely out of line with what I had reported. Reports talk about engine seizure, jerking and broken pistons, etc. I couldn't even believe these were reports that were based on assessing my car which was fully functional.

Spoke to garage again and he says he can't do anything as RAC refused the claim. I said ok fine just get the car back to the state it was in. Now for the shocker - At this point he says he can't do it as the engine is completely seized up and needs full reconditioning costing up to £2000. He says it was due to oil starvation and reminds me of the oil light coming on which he had casually mentioned in a one minute conversation. I literally blew my top and asked him what he was talking about. He says they took the car for a test run and the engine seized up and it is this that RAC were investigating. Note that this is the first time I was told about this development. So garage now gives me three options:
1. Allow him to repair the vehicle by putting a reconditioned engine (£2000)
2. Take back the car with the engine in stripped down condition kept in the boot of the car (with me still having to pay £600 odd for 7 hours of labour that he says he put in stripping down the engine)
3. If I do not make a decision, he would start applying storage charges of £30 a day for each additional day the car stays in the garage.

I was literally bristling but for the time, chose option 2 and paid him £600 using a credit card. Garage towed the stripped down car to my house.

A friend of mine later came to have a look at the car and brought along a mechanic buddy and they were shocked. They say that the engine is literally in pieces with broken bolts and it is difficult to believe that this can have been the state of the engine in car that was given in working state.

So now I am in a situation where my car (bought last year for £2900) is wrecked completely and lying in my driveway with engine in it's boot and that is after I have been charged £600.

I, for sure, will not let the matter rest and to this end would like some advice on the best way forward. For starters, I have asked RAC for a full transcript of their discussions and interactions with the garage regarding the case. Also, because my car has a tracking device fitted by my insurer, I have full evidence that the car was in regular use every day and including the trip to the garage when I gave the car.

colino

So you brought a friend and a mechanic along to look at some broken bolts but didn't get them to look for evidence of oil starvation, overheating or engine seizure. Get focused or don't waste your time.

aaj123

colino wrote: »

So you brought a friend and a mechanic along to look at some broken bolts but didn't get them to look for evidence of oil starvation, overheating or engine seizure. Get focused or don't waste your time.

I didn't quite get your point. Are you saying the garage has been very reasonable or are you saying that my approach to the issue should be different?

You see nothing wrong with the fact that the garage never told me all along that the engine had seized and that they had found an issue bigger than what I had mentioned when bringing the car in, until two strip downs had been done and RAC refused the claim?

When I spoke about the mechanic friend, I didn't say I have hired him yet formally to give me an independent report. He just came by to give me free advice and this was his opinion after seeing the engine. I of course did mention about the garage saying oil deprivation and his opinion was that it no way seemed a reasonable explanation for what he saw. But again, I reiterate, you cannot expect a friend to go into a full formal investigation of the engine and even if I do end up getting such an assessment done, it would have to be via an independent motoring agency and not from a friend.

So again, it would help if you explain why you think it is a waste of time. You reckon in this situation, one should just forget about the whole incident and live with the loss of £3500 (£600 charges + £2900 car)?

shaun_from_Africa

aaj123 wrote: »

Iit would help if you explain why you think it is a waste of time.

This following sentence would be my reasoning as to why you might lose any legal action.

Later that day, the garage just calls me and says 'Hey btw did your oil light ever come on in the dashboard occasionally?' I just replied 'perhaps yes once or twice and then I would top up oil'.

By stating this, you have admitted that you did not check the oil level on a regular basis, and once the light comes on, you should stop driving the car immediately. Did you do this?

The light doesn't indicate that the engine is low on oil, it means that the oil pressure is low (or non existant), and this could cause severe damage in very little time and you should have had the car looked at the first time you saw the light and not continued driving the vehicle.

aaj123

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

This following sentence would be my reasoning as to why you might lose any legal action.



By stating this, you have admitted that you did not check the oil level on a regular basis, and once the light comes on, you should stop driving the car immediately. Did you do this?

The light doesn't indicate that the engine is low on oil, it means that the oil pressure is low (or non existant), and this could cause severe damage in very little time and you should have had the car looked at the first time you saw the light and not continued driving the vehicle.

Take your point that the above conversation can be twisted to come to the conclusion you stated. But what about the fact that the garage never mentioned to me until the end that the engine had ceased and that this seizure what he was discussing with RAC all the time. I can vouch that he can produce no phone call transcripts to prove that he ever told me that engine seizure (and not the minor issue I had mentioned initially) was what was being investigated. This is my main grouse and doesn't this stand even considering what you say about the oil light?

prowla

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

By stating this, you have admitted that you did not check the oil level on a regular basis, and once the light comes on, you should stop driving the car immediately. Did you do this?

It depends whether it is orange or red, doesn't it?

The owners manual should state what the light means.

Iceweasel

I would also expect a car with an auto-box to move off as soon as I took my foot off the brake - it shouldn't need any accelerator to start off from rest.

Not sure if it's related to the seizure problem or not - perhaps it's been getting a bit stiff for some time.

But I wouldn't have described it as a minor problem - to me that is unacceptable.

Also a pity that you didn't go to the dealer you bought the car from.

However I do agree that the garage should have given you more info.

So you have an expected cost of £2000 to get the car back on the road - what would it's value be once running - compared to now which is basically scrap.

Is it worth fixing?

If you seek legal advice - how much will that cost?

I suspect proving mechanic negligence will be almost impossible after your admission of not seeking advice / checking on seeing the oil-light.

Might it be best to just cut your losses and scrap it now?

I'm sorry that this is not what you want to hear.

shaun_from_Africa

I would have assumed (and this may well be wrong), that a 9 year old car would only have had a basic oil pressure warning system, hence it would only have one light and suing this light as an indicator of when to top up the oil isn't really a good idea.

It's entirele plausible that the engine had been damaged by this practice and could have seized at any time, and it was just bad luck that it happened when the garage had it.
They must have thought that there had been something like this in the past otherwise why would they have asked the OP about it?

aaj123

Regarding the oil light discussion, the garage can indeed produce a transcript of the only phone call where he made a quick mention of the oil light and got words out of my mouth that I has seen it light up once or twice in last few months. But that same phone call will also show that the garage said nothing about any engine seizure that had occurred or anything that they had observed over and above the what I had told them to look at.

And if phone call transcripts are indeed produced, I know the date / time and duration of another phone call where I had told them exactly the issue for which I had brought the car to the garage.

So regardless of the oil light implication, my case is that the garage ought to have kept me abreast of any other serious issue that they observed instead of unilaterally calling up RAC warranty and discussing any issue related to engine seizure with them. Clearly, all the stripdown and two assessments that RAC asked for were all based on engine seizure investigation (quite helpfully they have said they are willing to provide me full transcripts of their notes including discussions with the garage).

I hold that the garage had no authority to carry on an inspection of a serious issue like engine seizure without first informing me that they had found something more than what I had reported. All along I was led to believe that it was the car not moving off without accelerator issue that was being investigated and discussed with RAC (which the RAC transcripts will prove was not the case). Also not that it is conclusive evidenceo n its own about anything, but the insurance company tracker device proves I was driving the car regularly including the trip to the garage. So it has to be a hell of a coincidence that the engine boomed up just when the garage investigated.


Is there a flaw in my reasoning?

arcon5

So to sum it up:

You knew there was a fault with the oil pressure and the engine eating oil.
They phoned to ask if you know there is a fault related to the oil pressure.
You basically told them you wasn't interested in them dealing with this issue.
The result being the engine seized when they test drove it to assess the issue taken in for.

I don't see how they'd be responsible for the engine!

But am confused why the engine was in bits if they was investigating an issue with the gearbox and ECU

At any time they rung you did they tell you what they was stripping down?
If not, I don't see how they can justify stripping the engine as surely a reasonable person would interpret this to mean stripping the gearbox down?

aaj123

arcon5 wrote: »

So to sum it up:

You knew there was a fault with the oil pressure and the engine eating oil.
They phoned to ask if you know there is a fault related to the oil pressure.
You basically told them you wasn't interested in them dealing with this issue.
The result being the engine seized when they test drove it to assess the issue taken in for.

I don't see how they'd be responsible for the engine!

But am confused why the engine was in bits if they was investigating an issue with the gearbox and ECU

At any time they rung you did they tell you what they was stripping down?
If not, I don't see how they can justify stripping the engine as surely a reasonable person would interpret this to mean stripping the gearbox down?

That is precisely my point. I take on board all the points about oil light indicator and that the engine could have seized on the test drive (though would be a hell of a coincidence give my insurance company driving record). However, if this happened, shouldn't they have called me and said your engine has seized and what course would I want to take?

On the contrary their phone transcripts would show that they called me with an initial diagnosis of ECU problem and that they have called RAC about it. But now they claim the engine failed on their test run.

So I admit oil starvation cannot be ruled out in theory but was the garage's behavior in line with what can be called 'reasonable'? He called me about the ECU problem literally three hours after I left the car there so I assume they must have done the test run. At that point why is there no mention of engine seizure (or at any point until I took the car in pieces back)? I could have asked him to stop at that stage just paid for the diagnosis at that point and chosen not to repair the car. As it stands, he kept on going about and ultimately billed me for seven hours of effort stripping down the engine.