Mechanic Uses My Car for His Own Use - Crime of TWOC!

Warwick_Hunt

DCFC79 wrote: »

That about the bluetooth doesnt mean she was in the car, it could have picked up the signal from when she was outside of the car and she played some music for her bf.

Just be focused on the more important stuff and not about the bluetooth and maybe the boot liner (unless they have admitted to it).
Its been going on for 4 years.

But someone liked her phone to the car.

DoaM

Lilroost wrote: »

About £150

Excess mileage charge was 18p to 19p per mile?

Mercdriver

Tarambor wrote: »

Doesn't mean it is the mechanic's girlfriend though. Many cars use 0000 or 1234 as the code which is a default for many bluetooth devices.

Have you read the thread at all? Every device has a name. A lot of people don't change the default name so it comes up as 'iphone'. In the case of the OP's car, it has come up with 'Lyndsey's phone'. A bluetooth carkit will not simply latch onto any phone you have to tell it to do it. So the guy's girlfriend's phone WAS paired to the car.

Warwick_Hunt

Tarambor wrote: »

Doesn't mean it is the mechanic's girlfriend though. Many cars use 0000 or 1234 as the code which is a default for many bluetooth devices.

Doesn’t matter what the code was, once you’re into the cars menu it’ll tell you what it is.

But you naively go on with your idea that the girlfriend happened to be at the mechanics place of work and randomly played him some music through the cars stereo.

arcon5

Lilroost wrote: »

The fact that for 2 years I was fobbed off driving a dangerous car and paying for it.

Ok

So are you after compensating for the ordeal? Or is there a bill or loss?

adonis

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

Doesn’t matter what the code was, once you’re into the cars menu it’ll tell you what it is.

But you naively go on with your idea that the girlfriend happened to be at the mechanics place of work and randomly played him some music through the cars stereo.

So if she needed the bluetooth option would she have been driving and not a passenger?

Mercdriver

adonis wrote: »

So if she needed the bluetooth option would she have been driving and not a passenger?

I'd certainly be asking the question as would she have been insured to drive the car? The employee of the garage would have been, but I very much doubt she would have been. Especially as she would not have had the OPs permission to drive it.

When I was having niggles with my Merc, the workshop manager took my car home and I used his company car. He had it for a week, didn't use it a huge amount, and eventually found the underlying fault and got a code reader on it. So a workshop person taking a customer car to try and replicate the fault is a very common and acceptable procedure, provided it is done properly.

This isn't trivial either because if the gf was using the car and had an accident who would have paid out? The car HAS insurance on it, there is a real risk that the OP's insurance would have been paying for it.

tho_2

She doesn't have to be driving. Could have just synced to the Bluetooth to play music through the car while a passenger.

Herzlos

The mechanic could also have been using his girlfriends phone for a while. But it's totally irrelevant; no damage was done from the bluetooth.

Lilroost

An update - I've requested a signed copy of the Fixed Cost Maintenance Plan which they haven't yet provided. They provided a copy of the Hire Purchase Agreement instead so I'm dubious that they have a copy of it, in which case I'm guessing they will struggle to get the money from me.
I don't have a copy of it since I returned the car almost 2 years ago and they gave me the impression that everything was finalised