Garage has wrecked my car - and charged me for it

Mark_Mark

aaj123 wrote: »

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?

The garage worked on your car (all be it unauthorised) and you paid without any protest. I don't see what come back you have.

It now seems your complaint is garage worked on my car, I wasn't happy with this but I still paid them. Now I've changed my mind what can I do?

Does that sum it up?

aaj123

Mark_Mark wrote: »

The garage worked on your car (all be it unauthorised) and you paid without any protest. I don't see what come back you have.

It now seems your complaint is garage worked on my car, I wasn't happy with this but I still paid them. Now I've changed my mind what can I do?

Does that sum it up?

So what do you think - I should have fought with him and just said I won't pay. He would have added storage charges for each day and my car would have remained there and he would soon have been within his right to scrap it in view of customer inaction.

I did not sign anywhere saying I am happy with service.

Mark_Mark

aaj123 wrote: »

So what do you think - I should have fought with him and just said I won't pay. He would have added storage charges for each day and my car would have remained there and he would soon have been within his right to scrap it in view of customer inaction.

I did not sign anywhere saying I am happy with service.

You need to see a solicitor.

He worked on the car and you paid him for that work. You don't want to involve the arc so get some legal advice as you don't like what you're hearing here.

patman99

All throughout this thread, you have failed to mention make/model of the car.
If it is one with a CVT auto-box, then yes, you would need to apply a bit of accelerator to get it to move (have driven more than one CVT car and they all behaved this way).

Nodding_Donkey

The way I see it you took your car in and asked them to look at a symptom (needing accelerator to move the car) they took the car on a test drive and the engine seized. To cover their !!!!!! they asked you if you had run it low of oil and you admitted it. The RAC then asked for the seized engine to be stripped and they asked your permission.

I really fail to see where the problem is.

I'd be looking at the earlier repair, maybe the old oil pressure switch was telling the truth.

I also don't think Section 75 is going to help you. They stripped the engine on your instructions and you paid them for the job. Are you saying they didn't strip it?

aaj123

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

The way I see it you took your car in and asked them to look at a symptom (needing accelerator to move the car) they took the car on a test drive and the engine seized. To cover their !!!!!! they asked you if you had run it low of oil and you admitted it. The RAC then asked for the seized engine to be stripped and they asked your permission.

I really fail to see where the problem is.

I'd be looking at the earlier repair, maybe the old oil pressure switch was telling the truth.

I also don't think Section 75 is going to help you. They stripped the engine on your instructions and you paid them for the job. Are you saying they didn't strip it?

As I have said repeatedly the problem is that at no time until the day I took the car back did he say that the engine seized and that this is what he had been discussing with RAC. Why do you think this is not a problem?

They stripped down my engine because I asked them to based on RAC needing diagnostic tests. What is the validity of this if he told RAC about an engine seizure problem which he did not even inform me about. If he produces a phone call record where I had said that he can strip the engine, this will be proved. And RAC transcripts will also show what he told RAC. So here I sum it up again:

The problem is that I was never told that the engine seized right up until the day I took the car back.

As for model of the car - I can't reveal it here but suffice to say that this car did not earlier require accelerator to move forward from rest. This occurred only a few days before I brought it to the garage.

Nodding_Donkey

If they had told you the engine had seized would you have admitted driving it with the oil light on?

Mark_Mark

aaj123 wrote: »

As I have said repeatedly the problem is that at no time until the day I took the car back did he say that the engine seized and that this is what he had been discussing with RAC. Why do you think this is not a problem?

They stripped down my engine because I asked them to based on RAC needing diagnostic tests. What is the validity of this if he told RAC about an engine seizure problem which he did not even inform me about. If he produces a phone call record where I had said that he can strip the engine, this will be proved. And RAC transcripts will also show what he told RAC. So here I sum it up again:

The problem is that I was never told that the engine seized right up until the day I took the car back.

As for model of the car - I can't reveal it here but suffice to say that this car did not earlier require accelerator to move forward from rest. This occurred only a few days before I brought it to the garage.

As you don't wish to tell us everything and don't like the advice, can I suggest you seek it elsewhere?

Mark_Mark

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

If they had told you the engine had seized would you have admitted driving it with the oil light on?

You're wasting your time with this half wit.

aaj123

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

If they had told you the engine had seized would you have admitted driving it with the oil light on?

So what is your point? That it is therefore acceptable for garages not to tell owners that the engine of their car has failed. Are you real? This one takes the cake.

And btw, even then he did not tell me the engine had seized until the last day. He could have said so right away after talking about the oil light.