Consumer Rights Act 2015

fred246

If you drive a car to a garage and say it's got a problem can you have a look? you don't expect them to phone you and say " it really has a problem now. We've wrecked it totally."

born_again

fred246 wrote: »

If you drive a car to a garage and say it's got a problem can you have a look? you don't expect them to phone you and say " it really has a problem now. We've wrecked it totally."

Well that will depend on the problem. You ask them to diagnose a problem. They do this, but in doing so that problem becomes fatal due to parts failing.

Op has never given any actual car details.
So we have no idea of car age/mileage/make/model/value....:eek:

So a lot of the arguments here are pointless. As yet again we have a OP who is not giving out any details. Just a vague question about consumer rights ( Which does have its own forum :eek:), then a drip feed of information, which even they can't remember the real facts :rotfl

Mercdriver

fred246 wrote: »

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.

I have asked you before so no doubt you won't do it (again). If you are so sure, pay the OP's costs (which a proportion would have to be paid upfront and you never receive all your costs back even if you win) and put your mouth where your mouth is. It's all very easy to sit there on your keyboard encouraging people to pay money out that they won't get a large proportion of back again. Go ahead and pay the OPs costs.

Thought not. Again.

usedtoname

Many thanks for all your messages, did not think I would get this much response, negative or other.

I had a semi-usable car, it is now unusable.
It has less value now than when I took it in.
I asked for a diagnosis, and I understand that things can and do happen to alter the performance of a car. However, me being thick, I assumed that the garage, who are highly equiped to deal with my property, would have a policy to warn a customer what would happen.
I refer back to the medical analogy. Doctor offers you a diagnosis/cure, but offers you the choice, go ahead and it could all be good, however, it could limit you to days left to live - choice.
The garage in question must surely have known that doing this proceedure would likely result in the car being left for scrap?? They are also in the market of selling cars.

Thank you Mercdriver for your words of encouragement.

fred246, yes thats the grey area to seek advice here. I will have to show the judge that the garage in question knew they were going to alter negatively, the quality of my property, and get them to admit publicly that that is their customer policy - something that they have refused to acknowledge.
It's important to me on a principle basis, that future customers know what they're letting themselves in for and perhaps, a garage in future will offer their customers the choice - rather than know they're going to alter someones property so much that it comes back scrapped and thus need another car.
My gut feeling is, that these particular companies know that it's going to cost the customer more if they diagnose than if they don't.

Court scenario?
Me - Mr Garage, in your expert opinion, were you aware that by going through the diagnosis that you would end up in this position?
Garage - We are a reputable company, we have excellent facilities and quaity mechanics, yes, we knew.
Me - So why didn't you tell me, you could have saved me time and money?
Garage - You asked us to diagnose your property, that's what we did.
Me - You did, so are you publicly telling the court, that it is your customer policy to ignore what is best for your customer, simply to make a profit out of their loss?
Garage - We did what we were paid to do.
Me - You did indeed. Your honour, I have no further questions...lol

comeandgo

usedtoname wrote: »

Many thanks for all your messages, did not think I would get this much response, negative or other.

I had a semi-usable car, it is now unusable.
It has less value now than when I took it in.
I asked for a diagnosis, and I understand that things can and do happen to alter the performance of a car. However, me being thick, I assumed that the garage, who are highly equiped to deal with my property, would have a policy to warn a customer what would happen.
I refer back to the medical analogy. Doctor offers you a diagnosis/cure, but offers you the choice, go ahead and it could all be good, however, it could limit you to days left to live - choice.
The garage in question must surely have known that doing this proceedure would likely result in the car being left for scrap?? They are also in the market of selling cars.

Thank you Mercdriver for your words of encouragement.

fred246, yes thats the grey area to seek advice here. I will have to show the judge that the garage in question knew they were going to alter negatively, the quality of my property, and get them to admit publicly that that is their customer policy - something that they have refused to acknowledge.
It's important to me on a principle basis, that future customers know what they're letting themselves in for and perhaps, a garage in future will offer their customers the choice - rather than know they're going to alter someones property so much that it comes back scrapped and thus need another car.
My gut feeling is, that these particular companies know that it's going to cost the customer more if they diagnose than if they don't.

Court scenario?
Me - Mr Garage, in your expert opinion, were you aware that by going through the diagnosis that you would end up in this position?
Garage - We are a reputable company, we have excellent facilities and quaity mechanics, yes, we knew.
Me - So why didn't you tell me, you could have saved me time and money?
Garage - You asked us to diagnose your property, that's what we did.
Me - You did, so are you publicly telling the court, that it is your customer policy to ignore what is best for your customer, simply to make a profit out of their loss?
Garage - We did what we were paid to do.
Me - You did indeed. Your honour, I have no further questions...lol

You haven't got a snowballs chance in hell.

AdrianC

usedtoname wrote: »

Court scenario?

You've been watching too many Hollywood court dramas.

It's a small claim over a few hundred quid. You do not get to play barrister and cross-examine them.

Me - You did, so are you publicly telling the court

Let me guess - with a flourish to the members of public hanging on your every word in the packed gallery...?

that it is your customer policy to ignore what is best for your customer, simply to make a profit out of their loss?
Garage - We did what we were paid to do.
Me - You did indeed. Your honour, I have no further questions...

And you think that's your killer blow, do you?

Wow.

lol

Indeed.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

You've been watching too many Hollywood court dramas.

It's a small claim over a few hundred quid. You do not get to play barrister and cross-examine them.


Let me guess - with a flourish to the members of public hanging on your every word in the packed gallery...?


And you think that's your killer blow, do you?

Wow.


Indeed.

So how do you question any evidence you disagree with?

custardy

2 days and still no wiser to whats actually wrong/broken/unusable?

BoGoF

OP, you are mistaking what you percieve as poor customer service with lack of skill in actually doing the work. Two totally different things.

You can't even remember what parts were removed fgs.

Have they not done you a favour here, you had a car that sounds like it was a danger to other road users. Now you don't.

usedtoname

comeango, why?

Adrian, few hundred quid?
Whats the court proceedure?
What questions would you ask?

Bogof, I'm not, I'm using logic to seek the reasoning behind their actions.
My memory is poor.
It wasn't a danger to other road users, so no.