Consumer Rights Act 2015

usedtoname

Hi everyone

About 6 weeks ago I asked a reputable company to diagnose a problem with my car.
In doing so, they had to remove some items and as such are now not in working order, thus my car isn't roadworthy.
Their claim is that by me asking them to diagnose my car I effectively give permission for them to do what they have done.

I called trading standards and was told that they have to provide me with "reasonable care and skill" under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Services - Repair.

Obviously I do not believe that they have honoured this, and they disagree.

Any advice on my next move would be welcome?

Regards

Shaun_of_the_Dead

usedtoname wrote: »

Hi everyone

About 6 weeks ago I asked a reputable company to diagnose a problem with my car.
In doing so, they had to remove some items and as such are now not in working order, thus my car isn't roadworthy.
Their claim is that by me asking them to diagnose my car I effectively give permission for them to do what they have done.

I called trading standards and was told that they have to provide me with "reasonable care and skill" under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 - Services - Repair.

Obviously I do not believe that they have honoured this, and they disagree.

Any advice on my next move would be welcome?

Regards

More information needed.

waamo

What have they removed and broken?

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

About 6 weeks ago I asked a reputable company to diagnose a problem with my car.
In doing so, they had to remove some items and as such are now not in working order, thus my car isn't roadworthy.
Their claim is that by me asking them to diagnose my car I effectively give permission for them to do what they have done.

Depending on what you asked them to diagnose, yes, it's entirely possible that those parts needed to be removed - and, yes, it's entirely possible that those original parts aren't able to be refitted.

But without much more information, there's no way in which we can give any solid advice. From what you have said, though, there's certainly no way to say with any certainty that they haven't used "reasonable care and skill".

tacpot12

Is the company is a member of a trade association? If so, you might look to see if the association has a dispute resolution process. The trade association might also pass an expert judgement on whether the company used reasonable skill in performing the repair.

The dispute resolution process should be a mediation, so the association should neither take the side of the member or the consumer.

usedtoname

Shaun, what information do you need?

Adrian, the parts most probably needed to be removed. My question to them was, before you get to the point whereby you anticipate that by removing the parts that the car wouldn't be roadworthy (I originally drove my car into their grounds), surely you should ask the customer whether to proceed? They replied that I had asked for a diagnosis.
If you go to a hospital for an operation, and the surgeon diagnoses you but before proceeding explains that it could go wrong, he gives you the choice to withdraw from potential harm?? Should a company be obliged the same principle to their customers, by not doing so, are they proving unreasonable care and skill?

Tacpot, I've had a look and cannot find them on the TR website. That was a good call of yours, shame they weren't, could resolve this easy.
Is it worth contacting them regardless?

Shaun_of_the_Dead

usedtoname wrote: »

Shaun, what information do you need?

Adrian, the parts most probably needed to be removed. My question to them was, before you get to the point whereby you anticipate that by removing the parts that the car wouldn't be roadworthy (I originally drove my car into their grounds), surely you should ask the customer whether to proceed? They replied that I had asked for a diagnosis.
If you go to a hospital for an operation, and the surgeon diagnoses you but before proceeding explains that it could go wrong, he gives you the choice to withdraw from potential harm?? Should a company be obliged the same principle to their customers, by not doing so, are they proving unreasonable care and skill?

Tacpot, I've had a look and cannot find them on the TR website. That was a good call of yours, shame they weren't, could resolve this easy.
Is it worth contacting them regardless?

What was wrong with the car?

What parts were damaged?

Why is it no longer roadworthy?

BoGoF

Your hospital analogy is frankly ridiculous. Did you really expect them to phone you as they dismantled whatever it was (for some reason you seem reluctant to elaborate).

If the 'unreasonable care and skill' argument is one you want to pursue then you would need an independent report stating that what they did was somehow unreasonable or not what a competent person would have done. What you think they should have done is irrelevant.

usedtoname

Shaun
What was wrong with the car?
The electrics were playing up.

What parts were damaged?
They told me but I cannot remember.

Why is it no longer roadworthy?
Because according to them, words to the effect of, by removing the parts they became unusable (I really should have this exact information).

Bogof
I expect them to have a policy that respects a customer enough to let me know the dangers of their actions. Had they told me that my car wouldn't be roadworthy, I wouldn't have let them anywhere near it. They claim that the engine is now in a terrible way, yet prior to their diagnosis 2 qualified mechanics (not theirs) praised it.

Yes, trading standards referred me to doing your second point.

waamo

There is a big difference between unusable and unroadworthy. Which is it?

You really need to be more specific than "the electrics were playing up" to describe the fault as it's impossible to say if appropriate care and skill was used without something more specific.

I think you need to know what was damaged. If it was rusted in bolts then you often have to destroy them to get something apart. That's how it's done and would be reasonable.

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

Adrian, the parts most probably needed to be removed. My question to them was, before you get to the point whereby you anticipate that by removing the parts that the car wouldn't be roadworthy (I originally drove my car into their grounds), surely you should ask the customer whether to proceed? They replied that I had asked for a diagnosis.

You asked them to diagnose.
The parts needed to be removed for diagnosis.
How did you want them to diagnose without removing the parts needed for diagnosis?

If you go to a hospital for an operation, and the surgeon diagnoses you but before proceeding explains that it could go wrong, he gives you the choice to withdraw from potential harm?? Should a company be obliged the same principle to their customers, by not doing so, are they proving unreasonable care and skill?

If you don't have the operation, you'll die.
If you don't get the car fixed, it'll be unroadworthy.

If you're going to break it rather than have it fixed, what's the difference if it's apart now?

More detail required, but you seem unwilling to give it, so it's pointless continuing.