Being charged "no fault" fee after technician spent 4 hours on my car

Fosterdog

Okay, you were not scammed or bullied at all, stop being so dramatic.

You were told about and agreed that if it wasn't covered by warranty there would be a £52 charge, no fault found would come under "not covered by warranty" so they correctly charged you, and it is a charge you agreed to prior to them commencing work.

The technician did not spend four hours "fixing" your car, they spent four hours trying to find and diagnose a fault and found none. It is possible that a noise was caused by something just slightly out of place that during diagnostics got corrected without them even realising, something like that would generally come under routine maintenance or wear and tear rather than warranty though so it would still be chargeable.

£52 is a bargain for four hours of work, whether fixing or diagnosing, my local garage is £45 an hour for labour alone, although they do a top notch job.

Pastabath

mije1983 wrote: »

To be blunt, probably because the CEO has more important things to do!

The resolver.co.uk recommended to escalate to CEO after sometimes the typical customer service could not resolve the problem. I never expect the CEO to reply me, but I expect resolver.co.uk must have escalated the issue to the executive office or top management since the typical customer service could not give me a satisfactory (actually ridiculous) answer. But no reply from the "CEO" since I escalated 8 weeks ago.

Pastabath

Fosterdog wrote: »

Okay, you were not scammed or bullied at all, stop being so dramatic.

You were told about and agreed that if it wasn't covered by warranty there would be a £52 charge, no fault found would come under "not covered by warranty" so they correctly charged you, and it is a charge you agreed to prior to them commencing work.

The technician did not spend four hours "fixing" your car, they spent four hours trying to find and diagnose a fault and found none. It is possible that a noise was caused by something just slightly out of place that during diagnostics got corrected without them even realising, something like that would generally come under routine maintenance or wear and tear rather than warranty though so it would still be chargeable.

£52 is a bargain for four hours of work, whether fixing or diagnosing, my local garage is £45 an hour for labour alone, although they do a top notch job.

The car is still under warranty, I expect Ford to pay for the repair. I asked and confirmed it will be fixed under warranty when I first arrived. The reception lady told the exception was if it was not cover under warranty, for example tyre wear, which is fair enough.

I agree it was most probably something just slightly out of place, and I expect Arnold Clark to fix it under warranty. This is exactly why I asked and confirmed it will be fixed under warranty when I first arrived. If this is not covered under warranty, then I most probably didnt want to fix it at all because the noise is annoying definitely, but I can live with it, and it is apparently Ford car quality problem. Why risk myself £52 for a Ford car quality problem.

Also, the noise came back after 2 months, but the car warranty was over unfortunately. I am annoyed with the noise, but I can live with it. I have no plan to fix it since it is out of warranty. The noise is very annoying but it should not affect the car safety, I wont spend money to fix. I am not rich, I am trying to save money wherever possible, which is why I am active in MSE.

£52 is not big, but it is my 1 week food allowance. I am happy to spend the money if it is required, but feel frustrated because I was being scammed and bullied.

BoGoF

Seems to be a trend for drama queens on this site these days. A scam? - get a grip

Fosterdog

BoGoF wrote: »

Seems to be a trend for drama queens on this site these days. A scam? - get a grip

Seems to be the school holidays and a rant/drama worthy of bluelass (and their various alternative names)

Pastabath

Fosterdog wrote: »

Seems to be the school holidays and a rant/drama worthy of bluelass (and their various alternative names)

No offence sir, this is not a rant or drama I created to catch attention, but it is a real incident.

If this is not covered under warranty, then I most probably didnt want to fix it at all because the noise is annoying definitely, but I can live with it, and it is apparently Ford car quality problem. Why risk myself £52 for a Ford car quality problem.

Also, the noise came back after 2 months, but the car warranty was over unfortunately. I am annoyed with the noise, but I can live with it. I have no plan to fix it since it is out of warranty. The noise is very annoying but it should not affect the car safety, I wont spend money to fix. I am not rich, I am trying to save money wherever possible, which is why I am active in MSE.

£52 is not big, but it is my 1 week food allowance. I am happy to spend the money if it is required, but feel frustrated because I was being scammed and bullied.

mije1983

Pastabath wrote: »

his is not a rant

So what is it then? You haven't actually said what you want from this so it appears to just be a rant? If you want the money back you will likely have to sue for it. If the money is not 'big' for you, then move on with life. You have to weigh up if the £52 is worth your time or not. Only you can answer that.

Pastabath wrote: »

The resolver.co.uk recommended to escalate to CEO after sometimes the typical customer service could not resolve the problem. I never expect the CEO to reply me, but I expect resolver.co.uk must have escalated the issue to the executive office or top management since the typical customer service could not give me a satisfactory (actually ridiculous) answer. But no reply from the "CEO" since I escalated 8 weeks ago.

I think you have the wrong idea of Resolver. It's not a silver bullet. In fact, it's pretty much just a 3rd party who passes your complaint on and gets the reply back and may give you minor assistance. I could do that for you, but it would in no way improve your chances of getting what you want.

Pastabath

mije1983 wrote: »

So what is it then? You haven't actually said what you want from this so it appears to just be a rant? If you want the money back you will likely have to sue for it. If the money is not 'big' for you, then move on with life. You have to weigh up if the £52 is worth your time or not. Only you can answer that.

Best case scenario is someone could point how to escalate further.
But £52 is not worth going for legal and I have no experience in legal too.
it definitely didnt worth the times I put in also. But my intention is to make the £52 money worth and counted -> learn a lesson, how to prevent this from happening in the future again.
I checked MSE after this incident, MSE told to put "pay under protest" on the receipt.
is there anything I could prevent this from happening at all? for example, avoid Arnold Clark at all cost! or always ask to show the problem before any fixing?

I think you have the wrong idea of Resolver. It's not a silver bullet. In fact, it's pretty much just a 3rd party who passes your complaint on and gets the reply back and may give you minor assistance. I could do that for you, but it would in no way improve your chances of getting what you want.

I know Resolver was just passing the complaint, but I expect Resolver to pass to the right department, escalate to the right executive office or top management.
But no single reply from the "CEO" since I escalated 8 weeks ago, this shows how bad is Arnold Clark executive office or top management.

neilmcl

Fosterdog wrote: »

Seems to be the school holidays and a rant/drama worthy of bluelass (and their various alternative names)

No wonder the OP has created the thread under an AE, you do wonder what their other contributions to MSE are like.

Pastabath

neilmcl wrote: »

No wonder the OP has created the thread under an AE, you do wonder what their other contributions to MSE are like.

these things happen in life, and it is difficult to prevent them. But at least, if we can learn from every incidents, we improve and avoid future occurrence and happening again.

I do hope this thread would be served as warning to other members, MSE forum provides this platform for members to discuss and share opinion, the outcome could be a lesson to others also.

For example, who wanted to send their car for repair, especially those controversial issue (could have been fixed without knowing). If there is a "no fault found" charges policy in place, why not just offer to show the problem before any work done? It takes only less than 5min to show the problem, then everyone would be happy.

Another example is from my experience, either the resolver.co.uk Arnold Clark CEO escalation didnt work, or Arnold Clark CEO/top management/executive office was non-existence at all. Members are warned if you ever face issue with Arnold Clark.

of course above example is just my person opinion, which I posted here, hoping you or those with more experience to comment if this is practical to do this. In my opinion, it is better to take preventive steps, than having problem and becomes ugly later. But, I seldom come to consumer right section, hoping you or those with more experience to comment.

All in all, this is to prevent being scammed and money saving
I would wish I read this thread before sending to Arnold Clark and being scammed £52

Arnold Clark being professional car dealer/service agent, I would expect they are professional enough to prevent this kind of incident by asking the customer to show the problem (those controversial issue (could have been fixed without knowing)). After all, showing the issue should <5min. If really there is no fault, wasting 5min technician time could be too minor to charge the customer at all and therefore there is no need a "no fault found" charges policy in place at all. May be Arnold Clark was not that professional as I thought. I am car servicing layman, I may be wrong, would appreciate more experience members could shed more insight. Any recommendation or outcome would be very useful for me to prevent another incident, and could be served as warning to other members also.