could i describe this repair by Shorade as fraudulent?

tir21

nobbie

also in addition

"As it was a goodwill gesture they were under no obligation and so no avoidance of that obligation took place"

the trouble i have with your line of reasoning here is that a court could think you were wasting its time in attempting to get a company to admit causing the damage - if the company has already said it will fix the damage

Mercdriver

tir21 wrote: »

you don't seem to know what defrauded means

What is your financial loss and how have they deliberately deprived you of it?

tir21

Mercdriver wrote: »

What is your financial loss and how have they deliberately deprived you of it?

just check out what defrauded means. Untill you understand the basics its going to be difficult to have any meaningful dialogue with you. thanks anyway though for your efforts

wgl2014

You are basing the 'fraud' on the company not carrying out a repair the way you expected.
If they said they would replace certain parts and then did not then fair enough they have not acted honestly.
If they said they would repair the affected part, which is what it sounds like, and have repaired it (poorly) then they have not been dishonest.
In any case it sounds like your car is back to how it should be so maybe time to move on......

Nobbie1967

tir21 wrote: »

nobbie

also in addition

"As it was a goodwill gesture they were under no obligation and so no avoidance of that obligation took place"

the trouble i have with your line of reasoning here is that a court could think you were wasting its time in attempting to get a company to admit causing the damage - if the company has already said it will fix the damage

Yes,

I think you're right on that, but a goodwill gesture does not prevent you from later exercising your legal rights, but it clearly has it's limitations as you have found as there is no contractual basis for the work done as a goodwill gesture. I agree they appear to have been trying to palm you off with a bodged repair, but legally it does not constitute fraud and it would therefore be unwise to state this publicly. Up to you of course🙂

debtdebt

About 3 years ago I had a Porsche 996 C4S. Got involved in a non fault accident and I picked this place as my preferred repairer. They did an amazing job and even fitted a performance exhaust that I was going to fit myself FOC due to the fact that the rear bumper would have to be taken off and replaced anyway. They also machine polished the whole car FOC too. Personally, I think they're a great company and well deserve to be linked with some of the high end marques.

tir21

debtdebt wrote: »

About 3 years ago I had a Porsche 996 C4S. Got involved in a non fault accident and I picked this place as my preferred repairer. They did an amazing job and even fitted a performance exhaust that I was going to fit myself FOC due to the fact that the rear bumper would have to be taken off and replaced anyway. They also machine polished the whole car FOC too. Personally, I think they're a great company and well deserve to be linked with some of the high end marques.

i know i have always been unlucky with various incidents that have happened to my cars

regarding shorade i would agree they are a very competent organisation when it comes to repairing damage you are paying them to repair. They did a good job respraying the part of the car i originally wanted fixed

it seems their honesty comes into question when they damage your car. There would have been multiple people there who knew they were deceiving me with regards to the extent of the damage the car had suffered

tir21

yhh4

wgl2014 wrote: »

You are basing the 'fraud' on the company not carrying out a repair the way you expected.
If they said they would replace certain parts and then did not then fair enough they have not acted honestly.
If they said they would repair the affected part, which is what it sounds like, and have repaired it (poorly) then they have not been dishonest.
In any case it sounds like your car is back to how it should be so maybe time to move on......

they said they would replace the ruptured washer valve. After they had replaced it i said the washer cover was not corretly centered and was not flush.

they agreed to address this issue so i left the car with them. When i collected it - it was no better and i told them this. The MD said it was within tolerance but i could tell it was not right.

at this stage they should have informed me that it might not be as perfect as i was expecting because there was a bracket missing and they had had to glue the washer valve into position

by allowing me to have to pay someone else to find out the bracket was missing they acted in a deceitful manner.

i think this is evident due to the MD apologising when i showed him the photographs of the bodge. He said it was unacceptable and no longer claimed it was within tolerance

If the MD said it was unacceptable why did his staff do it?

my contention would be that it could never be fixed to an acceptable standard without the bits being in siti that the designers intended to be there

Hermione_Granger

Mercdriver wrote: »

What is your financial loss and how have they deliberately deprived you of it?

The OP doesn't have to have suffered a direct financial loss for fraud to have occurred.
Everyone is getting tied up with the Wiki and dictionary definitions of fraud rather than the legal definition which is the important one.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

Fraud by false representation

(1)A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b)intends, by making the representation—
(i)to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

And as the OP's vehicle wasn't repaired to a satisfactory standard and the damaged parts were not initially replaced as promised, I think it's fair to say that the value of the car could well have diminished because of the repair.
"Gain" and "loss" do not only apply to money but also to the value of goods:

“Gain” and “loss”

(1)The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section.
(2)“Gain” and “loss”—
(a)extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b)include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property).
(3)“Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have.
(4)“Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has.

tir21

hermione

"and the damaged parts were not initially replaced as promised"

the damaged part was in fact replaced though. Its just that when it was replaced it was glued into position rather than being attached to a bracket.

it could not be attached to the bracket because the bracket was shorn off in the impact

my argument is without that bracket being there the job could never be done to an acceptable standard. Other people on here are of the opinion that glueing the part into position was an acceptable alternative method of attaching it to the car

however the valve attaches to a headlight washer cover which can be seen when looking at the bumper so if the valve is not in tbe correct position the cover will either not be central or will not be flush