Compensation offer for terrible service following breakdown

AlexLK

Car breakdowns are just an annoying fact of life. The breakdown companies do not expect they are going to need a low loader. As for your waiting time, whilst they should be out within a certain amount of time, it just doesn't always work like that.

I can remember waiting over 3 hours with my old motorbike for the AA, which I thought was utterly ridiculous at the time (thought wrongly that bikes would have been a priority) and around 4 hours on a stretch of road notorious for crashes in '60's Triumph which does not have hazard lights and charges from a dynamo. Did not ask for compensation either time.

motorguy

AlexLK wrote: »

Car breakdowns are just an annoying fact of life. The breakdown companies do not expect they are going to need a low loader. As for your waiting time, whilst they should be out within a certain amount of time, it just doesn't always work like that.

I can remember waiting over 3 hours with my old motorbike for the AA, which I thought was utterly ridiculous at the time (thought wrongly that bikes would have been a priority) and around 4 hours on a stretch of road notorious for crashes in '60's Triumph which does not have hazard lights and charges from a dynamo. Did not ask for compensation either time.

But this is claim culture britain - where theres blame theres a claim!

Its all about the com-pen-say-shun

AdrianC

jazzyb88 wrote: »

Hazards on for 3 hours, then switched them off because I gave up (so not dead at this point).

Either you needed the hazards because the car was parked in a hazardous position - in which case, you should have left them on until the battery failed, and you should have stressed the hazard of the location to Green Flag - or you didn't need them at all...

Ok so from what everyone is saying, it sounds like the battery was going to die anyway.

5yo isn't exactly new for a battery, but it isn't necessarily at death's door. Having said that, though, running a battery flat never does them any favours, and can easily kill one in late-middle-age, like yours. You'd struggle to get the cost of a new battery out of them (and £90 sounds high anyway). A fair proportional contribution would probably be less than half. But, having said that, the radio use certainly won't have helped.

Honestly? I'd take what's being offered. To get any more will almost certainly require a whole bunch of hassle and chasing. Their Ts & Cs include a tenner apology if they're not with you within 60 min. You have, of course, the right to escalate the complaint to the financial ombudsman. But given they're already offering you nearly twice the "from..." cost of the annual policy, I think you might be being optimistic.

jazzyb88

motorguy wrote: »

But this is claim culture britain - where theres blame theres a claim!

Its all about the com-pen-say-shun

I believe you should claim if there has rightfully been a wrongdoing that could otherwise have been avoided e.g. it looks like they messed up by booking the job as a lower priority, there was no need for that or sending out the truck to a flat tyre! But I agree with you that claiming for the sake of it is not right, and this isn't what I was aiming for.

AdrianC wrote: »

Either you needed the hazards because the car was parked in a hazardous position - in which case, you should have left them on until the battery failed, and you should have stressed the hazard of the location to Green Flag - or you didn't need them at all...

Well it was just off a roundabout (maybe 4 or 5 meters) but I was fortunate as I had enough momentum to pull off the road, so was not blocking traffic. It was also daylight so not sure if you could class that as a hazardous position? Certainly might have been at night but in daylight not entirely sure.

AdrianC wrote: »

5yo isn't exactly new for a battery, but it isn't necessarily at death's door. Having said that, though, running a battery flat never does them any favours, and can easily kill one in late-middle-age, like yours. You'd struggle to get the cost of a new battery out of them (and £90 sounds high anyway). A fair proportional contribution would probably be less than half. But, having said that, the radio use certainly won't have helped.

Honestly? I'd take what's being offered. To get any more will almost certainly require a whole bunch of hassle and chasing. Their Ts & Cs include a tenner apology if they're not with you within 60 min. You have, of course, the right to escalate the complaint to the financial ombudsman. But given they're already offering you nearly twice the "from..." cost of the annual policy, I think you might be being optimistic.

Thanks for the advice. Agree in hindsight that it didn't help by using the radio and the £90 charge to replace it was about £20 more than I thought it would be, but then I was a bit stuck with the car already at the garage.

In all, I am going to accept what they've given and move on. I suppose they could just as easily argue that it is my fault it died for using the radio and I could argue that I was bored!

Arguing to the Ombudsman also makes me feel a bit uneasy as breakdown cover doesn't really come with any guarantee of what time they will arrive etc. so I am thinking it is hard to dispute what is a reasonable amount of time and what is a reasonable loss above what they've already given.

motorguy

jazzyb88 wrote: »

I believe you should claim if there has rightfully been a wrongdoing that could otherwise have been avoided e.g. it looks like they messed up by booking the job as a lower priority, there was no need for that or sending out the truck to a flat tyre! But I agree with you that claiming for the sake of it is not right, and this isn't what I was aiming for.

Do they "guarantee" to have you recovered within a specific time OR do they quote average times?

Personally - they've made you an offer of £100, i'd take it and move on.

arcon5

£100 for 8 hours - I'd take that any day!!!
An absolutely outrageous wait of course and should never happen again but I certainly think their offer should restore the situation here.

AlexLK

So you called a breakdown company out because of a flat tyre? Why not put the spare wheel on yourself?

arcon5

AlexLK wrote: »

So you called a breakdown company out because of a flat tyre? Why not put the spare wheel on yourself?

Where's you get that from?
Op needed a recovering truck, so it's safe to assume it wasn't just a case of putting a spare wheel on

AlexLK

arcon5: The original poster put:

jazzyb88 wrote: »

it looks like they messed up by booking the job as a lower priority, there was no need for that or sending out the truck to a flat tyre!

AdrianC

IF the OP did indeed call them out - and get recovered - for a flat, then it may very well be because of so many modern cars having no spare. A can of flat-fix goop can't solve a shredded sidewall or dinged rim, and if it was outside tyre shop hours...