Garage ruined engine when car took in for MOT

Nodding_Donkey

Hopefully her insurance company will laugh at the idea of her claiming. I would hate to think that my insurance premiums were going up because people couldn't be bothered to maintain their cars.

That's not what car insurance is for.

Retrogamer

behenjamin wrote: »

Car doesn't have an oil service for 3 years, has warning lights on the dashboard which are ignored. The car fails while being tested at an MOT centre, and then blames the garage.

I'd be furious if it was my garage and a customer tried to do this to me.
However they'd neglected basic checks to perform before the test. It'd probably have happened in the next day or two of driving if it didn't happen at the garage. Who would the owner blame then? Doesn't sound like they'd point the finger at themselves.

I'd say blame is 80% owner and 20% garage. I think a reduced/discounted labour bill for repairing the car would be a fair outcome.

The DVSA guidelines make it quite clear that only too proceed with the MOT emissions test if the car is well serviced etc.

Doing the MOT emissions test without checking the oil first is negligent
Doing the MOT emissions test without checking the service history of the vehicle and being satisfied it is serviced correctly is negligent.
Doing the MOT emissions test with an illuminated oil light is idiotic and negligent

The correct thing for the garage to do was refuse to test. They chose to proceed and that made them liable.

People have had engines damaged on the MOT emissions test and the garage had done nothing wrong and they still won their claims in the small claims court so would seem like a slam dunk win for the car owner in this case.

Chrysalis

any update from the OP?

I think its unreasonable to expect every car owner to be a mechanic, instead its just reasonable for them to carry out regular enough servicing and to have MOT's carried out as required by law.

Of course mechanics which are experts in engines on the flipside should be expected to make sure oil etc. is all good before running such a test. So I am not surprised courts have gone in favour against mechanics.

AdrianC

Chrysalis wrote: »

I think its unreasonable to expect every car owner to be a mechanic,

There's a massive difference between "being a mechanic", and being bothered to carry out the dead easy periodic checks that are described in the owner's manual and have been part of the driving test for a decade and a half.

Tyre pressures/damage, oil level, lights - they're all FIRMLY in the latter category.

Cash-Strapped.T32

Indeed; If I were to spend my life buying ready meals and then be surprised that I have very little money left over after shopping and a very unhealthy body, people would rightly think less of me because I can't be bothered to learn the basics of to make a simple meal.
However, we can't all be chefs, I say.

Or when I'm unable to save for a house, or retirement, because I never bothered to find out how bank accounts work, or put aside proper savings, and just chucked my loose change under the mattress for years.
Well, we can't all be financial experts.

Many things in life require the user to educate themselves to a certain degree, and sure, you can generally wing it for a certain amount of time - either buy the pre-packaged version or pay someone else to do the thinking for you, but invariably this ends up costing more (like a new car...?), or otherwise being less beneficial than if you'd just learned a thing or two about it yourself.

I think it's a pretty accurate truism that holds true for relatively complex, technical things, like learning to just use a computer or smartphone properly, and thus avoid expensive replacements/repair costs for avoidable issues, to the student who learns to cook at uni, and doesn't end up flat broke and/or fat from 3yrs of nowt but takeaways.

It's just the most basic of basics that you'd expect to put into any aspect of your life, but when it comes to cars, many people (guys as well as women) just seem blinkered to it, and think that they should not even be expected to know the first thing about the huge, high speed chunk of metal they're propelling around the world that the rest of us live in.

I caveat this by adding that I'd be utterly lost if I had to do what a real mechanic does.
But I also realise that my life will be the poorer (figuratively and literally) if I don't bother to educate myself at least to a minimal degree, like knowing when I should ask someone more knowledgeable than me for help (or even just caring enough to do so).

God, reading that back makes me sound so old fashioned - and I'm only a young 'un. Is that really such an old fashioned point of view?

Richard53

Cash-Strapped.T32 wrote: »

It's just common sense to me, but then I am an old git and can't be expected to know any better. I am amazed at the number of youngsters I work with who regard their car as white goods. They don't know how their fridge or washing machine works, and the same for their cars. Anything wrong, well the MoT is due in six months; they can look at it then. (I actually had this conversation, over a failed headlight in winter.)

Chrysalis

It is the modern world, era of tech gadgets means more young people are interested in things like their phones than car maintenance, so as a result cars have to be built to take that in mind.

If e.g. the servicing hasnt been done adequately or the car owner has ignored an oil light, then yes I see your point. But if not the case then I dont particularly blame her. A lot seems to be depending on if the mechanics actually did what they should have done before carrying out that test.

EdGasketTheSecond

No way will your insurance company be interested; mechanical faults are not covered. Press 100% for the garage to fix it and if they won't go down the small claims channel.

sartois

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

No way will your insurance company be interested; mechanical faults are not covered. Press 100% for the garage to fix it and if they won't go down the small claims channel.

Yes wasn't sure if there was anything they would be able to do but some insurance provides legal cover, was thinking more along those lines than claiming for damage.

The garage owner texted me yesterday saying he hasn't heard back from his insurance (which as a business owner he should have some sort of cover) but said he would call today.

I've read all the comments on here and notice that a some suggest it's the owners fault due to negligence but I would say the following in her defence:

1. The oil warning light came on 2 weeks ago. She hardly uses her car and booked it into the garage for MOT and service. The only journey in between light coming on and the MOT was to take the car to the garage.

2. She informed the garage the light was on and asked them to service it. If her MOT wasn't also due within a month then she would have just had this work done.

I am really not sure what else she could have done, and whilst 3 years is a long time not to be serviced we are talking about a car that has done 3000 miles in that time, along with advise given to her previously (from a garage) that there was no point in changing the oil at her last MOT.

I'll wait and see what the garage says. He said he would have some news today, but didn't specify on whether it was good or bad.

davidwood123

Owner at fault. Stop shifting the blame