Consumer Rights Act 2015

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

I agree that parts would be damaged via a diagnosis.
My problem is not being given the opportunity to say no.

"Diagnose this, please. No, I don't want you to actually spend any time on it or just touch it. I only want instant psychic guesses."

usedtoname

Yes waamo, I messed up there, was rushing my message, sorry folks.

Angrycrow
The car doesn't run at all now.
The cost to repair what they damaged, is more than the value of the car when I took it in, and I would still need to fix the initial problem.

As a principled individual, taking them to court seems the only option.

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

The car doesn't run at all now.

It wasn't usable before.

The cost to repair what they damaged

They didn't "damage". They did what you asked - diagnosed. It's not their fault you didn't understand what that would involve. Yes, perhaps they could have explained better, but that's not sufficient to fall outside "reasonable care and skill".

is more than the value of the car when I took it in, and I would still need to fix the initial problem.

Then it was already beyond economic repair. Scrap it.
You will, of course, need to pay them for the time and costs incurred so far, but no need to pay to reassemble.

As a principled individual, taking them to court seems the only option.

You can certainly throw good money after bad, if you really wish. But from what you've said here, you have absolutely no chance of success in any case, and will just waste everybody's time, money and blood pressure.

waamo

As above. You had an unusable car. They've had a look and said it's beyond economic repair. You still have an unusable car. It has the same value now as when you took it in.

If you didn't have it diagnosed you would either have to leave it to rot, fix it or scrap it. All they've done is remove the fix it option, which would have been madness anyway if you had attempted it.

They've saved you the expense of attempting a fix so I don't see you have a case

Mercdriver

usedtoname wrote: »

Yes waamo, I messed up there, was rushing my message, sorry folks.

Angrycrow
The car doesn't run at all now.
The cost to repair what they damaged, is more than the value of the car when I took it in, and I would still need to fix the initial problem.

As a principled individual, taking them to court seems the only option.

I recently sued a surveyor. I was in the right and they settled. Did I get all that I was due? No. I think I was lucky if I actually ended up recovering all my legal costs, and I was clearly in the right. So I wish you all the luck in the world in this. You will lose and lose hard.

fred246

It is a generally accepted view that the job of a garage is to mend vehicles. A judge is likely to hold this view. It is cheap and easy to sue the garage. Costs are reasonable at £70 for up to £1500 claim. The difficult bit is quantifying the damage that the garage has done.

AdrianC

fred246 wrote: »

It is a generally accepted view that the job of a garage is to mend vehicles.

The OP didn't ask them to mend it.
He asked them to diagnose the fault.
Diagnosis of the fault required dismantling.

The difficult bit is quantifying the damage that the garage has done.

It doesn't seem as if they've done any.
They were asked to diagnose an issue on an old low-value car.
They've done so - and the owner's decided it's not worth repairing.

fred246

The owner of the vehicle drove it to the garage. It is now unusable. Is this one of your silly "it's all coincidental" arguments?

AdrianC

fred246 wrote: »

The owner of the vehicle drove it to the garage.

But it would only run for a few miles at a time.

BoGoF

fred246 wrote: »

The owner of the vehicle drove it to the garage. It is now unusable. Is this one of your silly "it's all coincidental" arguments?

If you had bothered reading the thread it was pretty much unusable beforehand.

Anyway, I thought I had previously put your ramblings on mute.......off to fix that now.