The garage blew my engine up.....

AdrianC

arcon5 wrote: »

Yes head gasket... So a skim and gasket set. Job done.

It doesn't typically cause any further damage unless driven on

Do we know whether more damage was actually done than a blown HG...?

BobCliffy

"The fact they took advantage by using it is moot ....." I would say "The fact they took advantage by using it is a bl**dy liberty ....." Surely this is taking a car without the owners consent ie. theft?

AdrianC

BobCliffy wrote: »

Surely this is taking a car without the owners consent ie. theft?

They had the car with your consent.

BobCliffy

Not so....... Apparently my consent to the garage driving the car ended when the job they had to do (ie MOT) was finished. The car had obviously passed the test prior to the engine blowing up so there was no reason for them to then drive it. My solicitor also now states that the extra milage on my car WAS exhorbitant and he will request an explanation from the garage.....he also would like to know why, when the car passed the MOT I was not notified and asked to collect it.....and where a bill of £900 came from and the proof of work (ie invoices)

droopsnoot

BobCliffy wrote: »

.....he also would like to know why, when the car passed the MOT I was not notified and asked to collect it.....

Another fair question, though, is at the end of the day that the car was in for its MOT, why didn't you go and get it back, or phone them to ask what was happening? I understand (and get very annoyed) that when many garages say "We'll phone you when it's ready" that actually means "keep phoning us, as you'll wait for ages for us to call you", but I've never just waited and waited for them to call me, even when they explicitly said they would, because I want my car back.

salubrious

To the op, have you actually paid the original garage any money yet?

You mentioned 900 quid, but said you refused to pay it, so I am assuming you haven't actually parted with any cash to those guys? - But they let you take the car away?

It's rather ironic you seem happy for the Jaguar dealer to be emptying your pockets with their list of work needed

arcon5

BobCliffy wrote: »

"The fact they took advantage by using it is moot ....." I would say "The fact they took advantage by using it is a bl**dy liberty ....." Surely this is taking a car without the owners consent ie. theft?

Even if it is, it is not relevant in a civil court. A civil claims court isn't going to agree they caused the damage merely based on the fact they was taking liberties.

dannyrst

Why are you asking for advice on here if you have a solicitor on the case already?

k3lvc

BobCliffy wrote: »

Definately done 370 extra miles....it was also pointed out by Jaguar on the vehicle MOT history. They had the car 6 months couldn't really do a lot about it

Are you for real ?? You took your Jag for an MOT and they kept it 6 months ? Surely there's more to this than you're letting on ?


My local garage needs mine out of the workshop/off the forecourt in hours to free up space :rotfl:

londonTiger

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, so you WERE there?

Why didn't you try to stop them?

FWIW, I've had hoses let go several times, without having worked on or otherwise disturbed them immediately beforehand. I've also had hoses split and burst. When that happens, the cooling system empties QUICKLY, and if the engine's up to full working temp at the time, you don't have much of a chance to do anything about it, especially in an automatic, where you can't just chuck it into neutral from speed without risk of starving the box of lubricant. Add in a whole bunch of electronics and power-assistance, and there are risks in turning the engine off before you come to a rest.

excepet the garage claimed the hose DISCONNECTED, not burst. hoses will never disconnect themselves unless the mechanic working on it did not connect the host back properly