Garage has wrecked my car - and charged me for it

aaj123

Mark_Mark wrote: »

4000 miles recommended service interval, is that a guess?

You've maintained the car have you?

You've gone over 12 months without a service and we can only guess when the last on was. The balance of probability would say it's your fault it failed and by perusing this you are !!!!ing in the wind.

Don't waste any more time or money on this and move on.

It is you who is avoiding the key question that forms the basis of my case. Here it is again -

If the engine failed during a test drive, why did the garage not inform me and let me decide how to carry on?

In other words, I am not claiming that the car could not have failed at the garage due to some fault. It is about the actions they took when they found the engine failed.

George_Michael

aaj123 wrote: »

I paid by credit card knowing I now have the added weight of Section 75 claim and the bank becomes an equal interested party.

I don't know too much about S75 but I would be very surprised to find that you would be covered by this.
It might be different if you had paid something before the work was carried out but as it stands, the credit card company only became involved once you were aware that there was a problem.
IMO, this would be the same as taking out an insurance policy in the knowledge that there was already a potential loss in the pipeline.

Mark_Mark

aaj123 wrote: »

It is you who is avoiding the key question that forms the basis of my case. Here it is again -

If the engine failed during a test drive, why did the garage not inform me and let me decide how to carry on?

In other words, I am not claiming that the car could not have failed at the garage due to some fault. It is about the actions they took when they found the engine failed.

So what are you trying to achieve?

Getting your £600 back?

The car is scrap I would have told them to keep it.

aaj123

Mark_Mark wrote: »

So what are you trying to achieve?

Getting your £600 back?

The car is scrap I would have told them to keep it.

Well getting the £600 is one thing. As for the car, he had no business to strip the engine without informing me why they were doing that. So who is to say whether the engine failed before his test drive or as a negligence when he actually stripped the engine (without telling me that it has failed).

You are just not addressing the key and indisputable point here that the garage told RAC that the engine had failed and thus RAC recommended stripping and all this while he never told me the engine had failed, not even when he called to say that RAC had recommended stripping the engine.

How indeed do you dispute this point at all? To me this is the crux of the case and I can vouch that he can go to all the lengths of getting phone records and still he cannot defend himself on this issue.

So if he done things the right way and told me as soon as the engine failed, I could have told him to stop there and not proceed any further. I would have questioned him rightaway and perhaps gone to have a look at the car and maybe show it to a mechanic recommended by a friend but at least the car would have been in one piece.

Mark_Mark

Well if the RAC told the garage to strip the engine why are you paying for that?

aaj123

George_Michael wrote: »

I don't know too much about S75 but I would be very surprised to find that you would be covered by this.
It might be different if you had paid something before the work was carried out but as it stands, the credit card company only became involved once you were aware that there was a problem.
IMO, this would be the same as taking out an insurance policy in the knowledge that there was already a potential loss in the pipeline.

Good point but I think Section 75 is not the same as insurance. It is a legal right that arises as soon as a credit card transaction arises and in fact is not limited to just the amount paid in the transaction but can cover any looses incurred as part of the whole transaction. But I will get this point verified in the credit cards forum.

aaj123

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Well if the RAC told the garage to strip the engine why are you paying for that?

So this I am not really sure about. I do know that RAC warranty says that diagnostics are not paid for by them. But beyond basic diagnostics (which typically cost £50), if the RAC asks for more tests, I am not really clear about the situation. I think RAC will wriggle out of this.

But the situation is too murky with the garage itself to start involving RAC in this. It will just become too confusing to start involving RAC in the dispute. I do want their help for the transcripts to start with.

only_mee

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

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.

A 1999 seat leon has the oil can and illuminates with either yellow (low oil level) or red (low oil pressure) Have i missed what car the OP says it is?

Mark_Mark

aaj123 wrote: »

So this I am not really sure about. I do know that RAC warranty says that diagnostics are not paid for by them. But beyond basic diagnostics (which typically cost £50), if the RAC asks for more tests, I am not really clear about the situation. I think RAC will wriggle out of this.

But the situation is too murky with the garage itself to start involving RAC in this. It will just become too confusing to start involving RAC in the dispute. I do want their help for the transcripts to start with.

I think you need to involve the RAC.

Garage worked on your car.
They asked for £600.
You paid them. (Did you protest or write anything on their receipt?)
End of your dealing with them.

What do you wish to contest via legal proceedings?

aaj123

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I think you need to involve the RAC.

Garage worked on your car.
They asked for £600.
You paid them. (Did you protest or write anything on their receipt?)
End of your dealing with them.

What do you wish to contest via legal proceedings?

Mark, you did add lot of value but now you are really not making sense any longer. What do you mean end of dealing with them? I paid them £600 because the options they offered me made no sense (see my previous posts). As regards 'protest' or 'writing in their receipt', I don't know what you mean? I do wish to protest and that is why I will now make a claim against them and take things further. What does writing on the receipt mean in legal terms?

And why exactly should I involve RAC and what for? They have said they were told of an engine failurep roblem and will provide the transcripts. The RAC all along were investigating engine failure and if they declined the claim, that really is a seperate issue which will go into details of what they cover and what they don't. In fact fighting RAC would be in a way admitting that the garage was right in discussing engine seizure with them.

Do you really think I should focus on a warranty coverage dispute with them instead of making my case against the garage who in my view are clearly the ones who behaved wrongly by not keeping me informed? I have mentioned a lot of supporting points for my case. I'd like to hear from you what points the garage can make in their defence (lets assume both cases - they have phone transcripts OR they don't have phone transcripts). How do you think they will defend the allegation that they did not inform me as soon as they found the engine seized?