Garage cost us £2500 as insurance comp won't pay.

allegedly

Hi,
I'm looking for advice for my son in law.
His car broke down and was taken to a local garage. The initial fault was found and the insurers were happy to cover that.
Further investigation found a more serious problem caused by the first fault.
The garage was instructed by my son in law to dismantle the affected part of the engine and this they did. But they then carried out the work required without informing the insurance company.
They had the car for almost 6 weeks and at that point the insurance company contacted my son in law and said they had just received photographs of the work needing doing, two days earlier. They also said the garage had not been in touch with them previously about the second fault but had carried out the work without authorisation and so they would not pay.
The garage owner has said anything he could to get out of admitting he was at fault and my son in law has had to pay for the car as he needs it for his work and a long week end commute. He signed the receipt 'Signed under Protest' at the recommendation of Citizens Advice but the garage is adamant it is not their fault.
Can any one give any advice as to his next step? Visit a solicitor? Looking forward to your replies, thanks Rob

waamo

By insurance do you mean a warranty repair?

allegedly

Hi waamo,
Yes. He paid to have a years breakdown parts and labour cover, organised by the garage in N London.
It was with the AA, acting as a broker I guess to the actual company offering the cover. The garage he bought the car from merely offered the option of the warranty cover from the AA.

He broke down on the M6 driving up here to NW Scotland so the car was 'relayed' up here and of the two repairer options, this one was the closest.
It appears the garage carrying out the repair didn't notify the insurance company covering the warranty repair before carrying out the additional work. This from a garage boasting to have been in business over twenty years and a Vauxhall dealer (albeit in very small town in the wilds of Scotland).
By him not following the Insurers procedures, which are apparently just the 'normal' way of conducting this kind of repair work and nothing out of the ordinary, they have refused to pay for the work as it 'has already been carried out, without proper authorisation from them.
The garage owner, when approached, initially said the fault was caused by driver error and therefore not liable under the warranty.
He stated the damage was due to there being no coolant in the reservoir.
My son in law pointed out the attending mechanic at the motorway breakdown had noted that the radiator and reservoir where full and the water pump, the initial fault, was an unexplained failure.
The report submitted by this mechanic is in the post as we've requested a copy from the guys garage.
So, as well as not following the insurers procedures, the local garage owner is lying in an attempt to 'wriggle' out of what must surely be his mistake.
However, we are paying for his ineptitude. Do we have a reasonable case, worth bringing to the attention of a solicitor do you think?

waamo

If you can afford a consultation with a solicitor it might be a good idea. Warranty companies are notorious for wiggling out of any claim. They are generally less regulated than proper insurance companies hence my earlier question.

They will fight tooth and nail if true to form.

keithmac

Why had it broken down in the first place?, if the water pump had failed and it stopped due to overheating I'm amazed there was still coolant in the block and header tank!.

At that point the engine would be so hot that piston to cylinder seizure would be almost inevitable (new pistons and rebore or new engine block required..).

SouthUKMan

This could be argued a couple of ways...

1) Assuming the garage knew that an insurer was paying the repair bill, then as a professional outfit the garage really should have known to liaise ONLY with the insurer and not with your son in law in terms of getting the work authorised. The garage - as professionals - should have gone back to the insurer to outline the second fault and to explain how it had been caused by the first fault.

2) Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, by asking the garage to investigate the second fault your son in law has muddied the water somewhat. The garage could argue that it's done nothing wrong - it carried out the initial repair as requested by the insurer and then independently your son in law requested further work - separate to that agreed by the insurer.

If this ended up in court, I suspect that the judge would have to rule on whether the garage was in the wrong by not liaising with the insurance company (if they believed the second fault was caused by the first fault), or the judge would have to rule on if your son in law's instruction to the garage represented a completely new and therefore separate repair for which the insurer had no responsibility.

It's a tough one. I suspect that the insurer and garage will dig their heels in and both maintain they've done nothing wrong. And if it goes to court, based on what you've said, it doesn't strike me as clear cut - your son in law's intervention could be the garage's and insurer's get out of jail card.

allegedly

Hi guys,
Thanks for the replies.
The car was behaving normally until the temp' gauge went from 'normal' to maximum in the space of a couple of seconds.
A bit of research shows this model has this as a pretty common fault, apparently but usually it's linked to an electronic fault rather than the mechanical one in this case.
The mechanic who attended on the motorway said in his opinion, the water pump had seized during normal operation, with no prior warning or over heating. He noted on his check sheet that the reservoir held plenty of fluid and there was no leaking fluid under the car.
The electronics monitoring this immediately reacted to the increase in temp and showed this in the gauge and by switching to what I think is called 'get you home mode', that is revs dropped and the car was certainly not able to maintain motorway speeds.
He pulled over straight away and investigated. The engine was hot as you'd expect but the fluid reservoir was at it's normal level, as seen by the mechanic.
While initially investigating this in the dark, my son in law dropped the filler cap which ended up on the tray below the engine and was found by the local garage mechanics. This was the first time he'd ever broken down on a motor way and late at night, nervous, trucks thundering past next to him I can sympathise with him dropping the cap.
The car was transported from approximately the midlands to the far NW of Scotland with out the cap fitted so this is one possible explanation for the fluid level being found to be low when checked.
The garage also tried to claim they found a leak in the coolant system when they'd rebuilt the engine.
They weren't happy when it was pointed out the mechanic attending the breakdown had noted no leaks whatsoever on the car at the time, intimating they'd not done a particularly good job reassembling the car after working on it. Again, an unsuccessful attempt on their part to shift the blame from themselves for simply not following the correct procedures.
The insurance company authorised the garage to carry out the initial work to change out the water pump and timing belt.
It was while doing this the garage contacted the insurers to say they suspected crank and valve damage, as you very probably would get with a damaged timing belt.
The insurers told them and my son in law he'd have to give permission to carry out the investigative work and if nothing was found, my son in law would have to pay for that work. If however, the suspected damage was found, the insurers would meet the parts and most of the labour costs. So this he did. But he did not tell them to go ahead and do the repairs, that could only come from the insurers, as the garage would have been aware.
This is where it all goes wrong.
As mentioned above, the insurers contacted my son in law to say they had just received photographs and details of the damage and repair costs, after over six weeks delay.
They then said as the garage had not contacted them before and requested authorisation to carry out the work they had just gone ahead and done, the insurers were not obliged to meet the costs as it had been done without their permission.
So, regardless of ones opinion of the insurers behaviour, which I think is
callous and craven at the least and does nothing to enhance the reputation of the insurance industry, the fact remains, surely, that the garage neglected to follow procedures.
That as a business of over 20 years experience, they must have carried out on numerous occasions but on this one they failed to do so and now not only refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, or lack of them but also have blatantly attempted to shift the blame by lying about driver error, in complete contradiction to the first mechanics report.
So, yes, we are looking at approaching a solicitor for advice and hopefully pursuing this individual for the money.
It comes back to my original question, with what I've written, does anyone think we have a genuine case worth pursuing? Morally yes but legally?
Thanks in advance, Rob

lincroft1710

What work did the garage do to find out if the crank and valve(s) were damaged?

bris

You need to look at all the facts and work out what losses if any you have actually suffered. It's not as cut and dried as saying you owe me £2500.


The sticking point here is the fact you authorised the garage to strip down the engine to find the second fault. This could be seen as authorisation, but even if not it's still an expensive process the garage would need paying for insurance or not. Then if they said no the engine would still need rebuilt back to the same position adding another huge expense to the labour costs that you would still be liable for.


Labour is a significant part of any repairs as parts in comparison are relatively cheap.


So you now need to factor in the garage costs for the authorised work and not only that you still would have had a scrap engine that still needed fixed, is that another 2.5 grand?


So you need to ask yourself what you would have done with the car if they hadn't fixed it, the insurers refused the repair so where did that leave you.

allegedly

Hi bris,
I agree but the point is the garage told the insurers and my son in law that they suspected further internal damage once the timing belt fault was identified and that a partial strip down was necessary to confirm it or not. The insurers were not prepared to sanction this so told my son in law to instruct the garage to carryout the investigative work.
They said if nothing was found, the cost had to be carried by him, my son in law but if the suspected crank shaft and valve damage was found, they would cover the repair work.
So the risk was his initially but he agreed and told the garage to do the strip and confirm or not.
The next step, upon finding the suspected damage was for the garage to photograph the damaged parts, do a costing and send them to the insurers for approval and authorisation for the repair work.
This the garage did not do. They stripped the required parts of the engine and then ordered and fitted the new parts. All this without informing the insurers that they were doing it. The insurers had already told them and my son in law that was the next step.
So why an experienced garage, a Vauxhall dealer as well, decided to just continue to do the repair with, as you say, incurring extensive labour costs, without getting the usual, correct authorisation from the people paying for the work beggars belief. They hadn't even told my son in law they were just going ahead regardless. And when they finally did tell him, the last thing that occurred to him was to wonder if the garage had checked with the insurers! That's why you go to approved repairers....they are established as being capable of doing all aspects of the job, including you'd have thought, the paper work needed.
And then to disclaim any responsibility for the !!!!-up, because that's exactly what it is, I think is a step beyond negligent.
And to answer your specific questions: Yes, he accepted that he would have to pay if the exploratory strip down found nothing.
The insurers had pointed this out to both him and the garage so he was very aware of the risk but the garage and his own experience of working on cars made him think this was the only way to go.
The insurers had already said they would pay if the suspected damage was found and this put his mind at ease. What he did not expect was to have to pay for it all because the garage made a basic mistake in not informing the insurers. Surely that is an integral part of the process? No less important than the test drive after the refit which found a leaking hose on the cooling system (which hadn't been there prior to the strip down which perhaps points to the quality of the garage over and above their ineptitude as maintainers of necessary paper work). Oh and yes, don't forget they then tried to blame my son in law for the leak!!!
I do agree the garage clearly incurred a lot of costs, but why should my son in law foot their bill when it would have been the insurers responsibility, as they said, had they just sent the pics and report in when they should have, before not after the event.
And yes, you're right, if he hadn't taken out the extra cover as a responsible car owner, he'd have to foot the bill himself. But he shouldn't have to, that is the whole point here.
I fail to see how it's not obvious the garage is negligent in it's actions and as a result, my son in law is two and a half grand out of pocket despite having the warranty, all because they're crap at doing what they get paid to do!!

SouthUKMan

If I have read everything tight, if you take a case to the small claims court, a judge would likely first rule on if the garage was authorised to carry out the work. If no, then I imagine the judge would rule in your favour and the garage would bear the costs. If yes, then the judge would have to decide who gave authorisation - your son in law or the insurer. If the judge finds the insurer gave authorisation, then the judge will likely order reimbursement for the garage, If the judge finds your son in law gave authorisation, then your son in law will be liable for all costs. Remember, if he loses, costs include the defendants costs as well, although in a small claims court these are often (but not always) limited.

You need to decide what evidence you can bring to convince a judge. Insurers keep recordings of all calls. If they said they would bear the cost of repair if the faults were connected, then maybe you can request a recording. Was the offer in writing at all? Think about what evidence you can gather -- evidence rather than emotion - and then see a solicitor.