Consumer Rights Act 2015

Ectophile

usedtoname wrote: »

Any advice on my next move would be welcome?

So far, you've failed to convince anyone here that the garage have done anything wrong. So I would recommend you pay the garage to put the car back together again, and then drive away.

usedtoname

Waamo
The car is now both unusable and unroadworthy. As I've said, I drove it to them, it ran but for only a few miles at a time.
I hear your 3rd point.

Adrian
From their reaction, they knew parts would be unusable/broke after diagnosis. I assume they would let me know prior?
If I don't have the operation, I will still be alive but my car will trod along poorly, still technically roadworthy until the next mot... it's about choice.

Ectophile
I only have to convince the garage or a judge.

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

If I don't have the operation, I will still be alive but my car will trod along poorly, still technically roadworthy until the next mot... it's about choice.

Driving a car that would fail the MOT is a pretty good working definition of unroadworthy. It might have a current MOT - but that's not the same thing at all as being roadworthy.

I'm guessing this "electrical" issue is engine management light? So emissions?

Shaun_of_the_Dead

usedtoname wrote: »

Waamo
The car is now both unusable and unroadworthy. As I've said, I drove it to them, it ran but for only a few miles at a time.
I hear your 3rd point.

Adrian
From their reaction, they knew parts would be unusable/broke after diagnosis. I assume they would let me know prior?
If I don't have the operation, I will still be alive but my car will trod along poorly, still technically roadworthy until the next mot... it's about choice.

Ectophile
I only have to convince the garage or a judge.

You'd get a lot better advice by telling the whole story rather than drip feeding information.

BoGoF

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

You'd get a lot better advice by telling the whole story rather than drip feeding information.

Indeed.

But seeing as OP was told what parts were removed but can't remember and can't recall the reason why now unroadworthy I won't hold my breath.

I'm sure the judge will rule in OP's favour based on that.......

waamo

"His face looked a bit shifty" isn't the best legal argument I've heard. I'm not entirely convinced it will persuade a judge of your case.

usedtoname

I agree that parts would be damaged via a diagnosis.
My problem is not being given the opportunity to say no. As I said, had I known parts would be damaged to the tune of the cost they require to fix, which is a lot, I would drive it away and asses my options.

Thanks for your help.

waamo

usedtoname wrote: »

I agree that parts would be damaged via a diagnosis.
My problem is not being given the opportunity to say no. As I said, had I known parts would be damaged to the tune of the cost they require to fix, which is a lot, I would drive it away and asses my options.

Thanks for your help.

You may have a good point with that argument however that is a completely different kettle of fish to your opening argument in the first post.

angrycrow

Given you say the car would only run for a few miles before cutting out it was already unroadworthy so you are no worse off.

If these parts needed to be removed to fix it you are no worse off.

Pay the garage for the work done and scrap it or pay them to fix it.

I can't see your case succeeding in court but stranger judgements have been handed down.

Mercdriver

Judge: What was damaged?
Plaintiff: The whotitsname whatdoyoucallit

(Scratches Head)