Garage has wrecked my car - and charged me for it

arcon5

Im not sure that would necessarily be the case, in this instance at least, as the claim would be for the fee for investigating to be refunded on the grounds they've performed alternate unauthorised work unconnected with the original query it went in for. It would be like taking it in for a new water pump and them replacing the starter motor and charging you for it. So it's pretty pointless allowing them to put it back together. My view is the seizure will likely be seen as not their fault but they have failed to perform the agreed service so no fee should have been charged.

aaj123

arcon5 wrote: »

My view is the seizure will likely be seen as not their fault but they have failed to perform the agreed service so no fee should have been charged.

Ok. Agreed the seizure could be seen as not their fault. But would they not be held liable for carrying on unauthorised work and pay some compensation for that? Refunding fees is one thing but what about the fact that they should not have stripped the engine at all? Why should they just get excused for doing so simply by agreeing to refund the fee they charged for labour?

photome

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Don't feed the troll!

arcon5 wrote: »

Do you even know what a troll is ??

I would say he does, the mirror doesnt lie

photome

arcon5 wrote: »

If I was you I'd be asking two questions and be pushing hard for answers:

Why the engine was being dismantled to investigate a gearbox and ECU issue (compression tests can be done without taking the engine apart)
Why the RAC reports are to do with the engine when this has nothing to do with your enquiry.

The engine may have seized due to no fault of theirs. However the fact it seized, they never told you about it and continued liasing with the warranty company about this seizure and northerner original issue it was taken in for all sounds so fishy it's unreal.
Call me sceptical but these actions sound like they have something to hide and hoping the RAC will pay for it!

It's unlikely you'll get any comeback with the engine though --- but if they cannot justify their actions (by giving a very good reason for taking engine apart having diagnosed it as an ECU issue) then I'd be pushing for a partial refund of the investigation fee at the very least!!!

the most sensible post of the thread

aaj123

Can anyone advise how burden of proof applies in such cases?

For instance, I say I asked the garage to look at the issue of car needing accelerator to move off and my case is that the garage looked at an engine issue without informing me.

Now most of this was verbal and if we discount the possibility of phone call recordings which I doubt exist..how does the court decide who is right and who is wrong?

Where does the burden of proof lie if a customer claims that a garage damages a car? Does the customer have to prove that the car was good earlier OR does the garage have to prove that the fault was genuine?

In my case, I do happen to have proof that the car was in running condition when I gave the car to the garage. Now it isn't. How does the court even decide such a case? Who does it place burden of proof on?

bigadaj

In any civil case it's determined on teh balance of probability, determined by the evidence to hand. So the more evidence you have the more likely you are to win any claim, and you would get some additional allowance S a retail consumer in most approaches over a business.

Have you spoken to local trading standards?

You could make a claim for your costs through small claims court, represent yourself and minimal cost.

Stoke

Really, the oil light is an idiot light. For it to flash, there has to be low oil pressure. For there to be low oil pressure, there has to be VERY VERY low oil. I once ran a car with a litre too little of oil. I misread the spec sheet and put in a litre less by accident. It ran without the oil light coming on and I noticed later that it needed more

Bantex_2

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.

Think you are probably scuppered.

aaj123

Bantex wrote: »

Think you are probably scuppered.

What about the remainder of the paragraph from where you highlighted a sentence?

Mark_Mark

Mark_Mark wrote: »

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

Still stands.