Verbal vs written evidence

aaj123

I have a dispute with a garage where I took the car to diagnose what was a minor problem with the gearbox but they ended up stripping up the engine and later claim the car engine seized up during the test run.

They never communicated to me about the engine seizure until the day I came to collect the car back and had only ever asked them to diagnose the gear box issue.

If I sue them on the basis of doing unauthorised work, how would the court decide whether 1) I did indeed authorise them only for gear box fault diagnosis 2) whether they had kept me informed of the engine seizure ?

To be clear, there is no written documentation about anything. Most of the conversations were face to face or on the phone. So I doubt either the garage or myself can provide any evidence of what was communicated between us except just making a statement of what they think is the fact.

How will the court evaluate such a case to see who is at fault? Me thinks the burden of proof should be on the business as they should be the ones who should have to keep records and have the onus of proving. I am happy to be told alternate viewpoints.

mattyprice4004

Seems a bit suspicious to me - why would they take the engine apart for a gearbox issue?

browneyedbazzi

A court will hear both sides and in civil cases decide which is most likely to be true on the balance of probabilities. They're likely to take what is actually said as well as how you present yourself etc into account when deciding whether or not they think you are telling the truth.

aaj123

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

Seems a bit suspicious to me - why would they take the engine apart for a gearbox issue?

Seems that way to me too (and there is a motive considering that I gave them a RAC warranty that could cover repairs up to £2000).

Anyway, if I sue, it is likely to be my word against their word and it is there I was hoping to know how matters proceed. I can stand my ground and say I gave the car only for a gear box issue and never authorised any engine stripdown nor was I ever informed about any engine seizure.

If the garage defends, they might say I did know everything that went on.

There really is no written documentation. I highly doubt the garage records phone calls and even if they do, I doubt they would present the recordings because the calls will not back up their position. So it is going to be word against word.

agrinnall

This is the third thread you've started on this, why don't you just tell us exactly what answer you want, we'll give it to you and then we can stop reading about this saga?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4904191

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4903847

aaj123

agrinnall wrote: »

This is the third thread you've started on this, why don't you just tell us exactly what answer you want, we'll give it to you and then we can stop reading about this saga?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4904191

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4903847

True but then all three threads have been about different aspects of tackling the case and they are in forums relevant to the specifc question in each. What is your problem?

arcon5

1.
A court would decide based on the balance of probabilities. IE whose story sounds more plausible based on the explanation given and any supporting documentation.

2.
The court would unlikely see any value in them not telling you sooner. Want they will want to establish is WHY they dismantled the engine. If a plausible explanation for dismantling the engine to diagnose the gearbox fault can be found then it would go in their favor. If not, and they believed the car went in for a gearbox issue then I suspect they would grant a refund of fees paid relating to dismantling the vehicle as it was not part of the service required of them.


Also remember to be explicit the claim is for a refund of fees paid for investigatory work - not a demand for them to pay for remedial work for a seized engine. As it was mostly agreed the engine seizure was not their fault, but they took it on themselves to investigate it, despite not being authorised to do so.

aaj123

arcon5 wrote: »

1.
Also remember to be explicit the claim is for a refund of fees paid for investigatory work - not a demand for them to pay for remedial work for a seized engine. As it was mostly agreed the engine seizure was not their fault, but they took it on themselves to investigate it, despite not being authorised to do so.

Agreed that engine seizure cannot be directly ascribed to them. But can I not claim compensation from them for not giving the car back in the shape and form that it was given to them? Yes, the engine may well have failed but I gave them a car that had an engine fitted to it whereas they gave back a car that doesn't. If they did unauthorised work, true I will claim back the labour they charged for soing so but at the same time if they haven't got back the car in the shape and form I had given it, I feel my claim should include compensation for that too. Additional to this is that they never communicated engine failure to me an did not give me an opportunity to decide the next course of action.

Notice that the above does not blame them for the engine failure. All I am trying to say is that simply claiming back investigation fee seems too light to me.

Bantex_2

If you are going to take them to court, what will you be suing for?

aaj123

Bantex wrote: »

If you are going to take them to court, what will you be suing for?

Potentially two claims as follows:

1. Refund of labour spent on unauthorised diagnosis:
This one seems relatively straightforward and amounts to what I paid for their bill (£600)

2. Compensation for not delivering the car in the shape and form it was given to the garage:
Now this is the more complicated one. I agree with all posters who have advised that claiming for damage to the car is probably not going to hold and that is not what I am intending to claim for under this heading. It is more subtle than that and concerns the fact that the gave me back a car with engine removed whereas I had given them a car with engine fitted. In effect it is a compensation for doing work on the car that I hadn't authorized or asked for.

I agree the second point isn;t straightforward and I am struggling to come up with a way to arrive at a number there which looks fair and justifiable.

The other question I have is that if I claim under both headings, can the court uphold first point and turn down the second? In other words, is there a chance my case for point 1) gets hurt by the presence of a claim for point 2) too? Or is the decision making mutually exclusive?

bris

Didnt one of your posts say the engine seized on a test drive? The garage have the right to test drive, the engine may have been part of the problen all along, the garage would be hard pressed to be liable for the engine seizing, why would they be?