Garage involved in car crash.

dacouch

uk1 wrote: »

You are correct but you are attempting to conflate two entirely different issues into one.

The garage has a contractual obligation to return the car the the OP in fully working order with a new engine. The OP has an obligation to pay for it when it is returned. Whilst the vehicle was in the care of the garage someone else damaged it.

The garage is obligated to repair the car, receive the cost of the engine repairs from the OP and attempt to recover the cost of the rear damage from whoever it holds responsbible.

Your original post told the OP he was not obliged to pay the garage for the engine work

uk1 wrote: »

Yantos, the situation is more complex than some posters have suggested.

Your car was worth £4.5k because it was fully working and repaired when it had the accident but you do not owe the garage the cost of the repairs because it was in consumer law an implied term term that they deliver the car back to you in a fully repaired working condition and without any additional damage. They failed to meet that term and therefore YOU do not owe THEM anything.

uk1

dacouch wrote: »

Your original post told the OP he was not obliged to pay the garage for the engine work

You seem confused and need to reread what I said.

My original post was exactly the same as my last post. He is not obligated to pay for the repairs unless his car is returned to him with a new engine and fully repaired.

EdGasketTheSecond

Well something doesn't seem quite right here if the OP is 2K out of pocket through no fault of their own. Why was the garage 'test driving' it anyway; they don't need to do that on the road; it was an engine job so why go on the road? maybe the garage insurance should cover the £2K? The car was left in their care and the OP shouldn't be 2K down as a result.

p00hsticks

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Well something doesn't seem quite right here if the OP is 2K out of pocket through no fault of their own. Why was the garage 'test driving' it anyway; they don't need to do that on the road; it was an engine job so why go on the road? maybe the garage insurance should cover the £2K? The car was left in their care and the OP shouldn't be 2K down as a result.

The OP is only £2k down (over what they would have been if the accident hadn't have happened) if the insurance doesn't fully pay out the value of the car as complete with new engine.

Aretnap

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Well something doesn't seem quite right here if the OP is 2K out of pocket through no fault of their own. Why was the garage 'test driving' it anyway; they don't need to do that on the road; it was an engine job so why go on the road? maybe the garage insurance should cover the £2K? The car was left in their care and the OP shouldn't be 2K down as a result.

(Looking in on the thread again, rather against my better judgement)

Nobody is saying that the OP (actually his mum) should be £2K worse off as a result of the accident. Had the accident not happened she would have had a freshly fixed car worth about £4.5K, and a £2K repair bill. So the fair outcome would be for her to get her £4.5K, but still have the £2K bill for the repairs that were done. That leaves her in the same position as if the accident had not happened at all.

If she was paid the full £4.5K AND was left with no repair bill that would leave her BETTER off than she would have been without the accident, to the tune of about two grand. If that was how things worked we would all be crossing our fingers when we took our cars in for major repairs, hoping that they get written off on the final test drive so we can collect a few thousand pounds of free money.

It would also leave the garage worse off through no fault of their own as they wouldn't get paid for the work they'd done on the car. Unless the third party and his insurers were somehow required to pay out £6.5K for writing off a £4.5K car.

Good luck to the OP if that's what he wants to argue for, however I don't find the arguament persuasive, not least because the end result would be absurd in several ways.

uk1

Fairness to the garage is irrelevant as the garage's problems are not the problems for the OP's mother.

She is entitled to expect from the garage either:

(a) Her car returned with a new engine in good order for which she should pay £2k for the agreed work or

(b) The negotiated and agreed cash value of replacing her car with a similar car with a brand new engine from the garage - less the £2k.

Sea_Shell

Think of it this way...

Imagine the incident was NOT whilst the car was with the garage.


Mum pays the £2000 for the repairs, and gets the car back. All's good, the car, is again, now worth £4500. (Whether one should spend nearly 50% of the value of it, to repair it, is another matter)

On the next day, Mum has the exact same incident, and the car is written off, insurers value it at £4500 and pay up.

As others have commented, the car is only worth £4500 IF the £2000 work has been done AND PAID FOR.

At the end of the day, Mum should NET £2500, with which to buy another car.

chrisw

uk1 wrote: »

She is entitled to expect from the garage either:

(a) Her car returned with a new engine in good order for which she should pay £2k for the agreed work or

(b) The negotiated and agreed cash value of replacing her car with a similar car with a brand new engine from the garage - less the £2k.

This is exactly what others are saying. It's NOT what you said initially in your first post #12 or your subsequent posts.

So there is no longer any disagreement.

uk1

chrisw wrote: »

This is exactly what others are saying. It's NOT what you said initially in your first post #12 or your subsequent posts.

So there is no longer any disagreement.

You are wrong.

This is entirely consistant with what I said in my first and second post and you are correct SOME asgree. Others have said he has to pay in full without the return of his car becasue the garage hasn't been "negligent". Several posts drone on about the garage not being negligent. The issue is not about negligence but about breach of contract so those opinions are simply incorrect.

I have no idea what the purpose of your note is.

Jumblebumble

uk1 wrote: »

The garage is obligated to repair the car, receive the cost of the engine repairs from the OP and attempt to recover the cost of the rear damage from whoever it holds responsbible.

This statement is incorrect if the car has sufficient damage to make it a write off which the OP has indicated is likely to be the case. They are not obligated to repair the car.
The position that the Garage (or their insurers) needs to either return the car fully repaired or they hand over £4500 to the OP and keep the salvage ( or give back the car as is with a salvage deduction)
The OP needs to pay the garage £2000 either way