Call Out Fee - Misdiagnosis

Okell

Money_Grabber13579 said:

tightauldgit said:

HillStreetBlues said:

screech_78 said:

I would give them time to respond.

We work regularly with them and they are generally one of the better repair agents. 

I don’t agree that you’re due a full refund however as someone did attend. 

Have to disagree, they sent someone who wasn't up to the job. If they had sent a chimp, as least the wrong info wouldn't have been given. 
Doubt they  could then claim "Mr Shifter" did attend and ask for a fee.

It's a weird one though isn't it? Normally you'd look at what situation the customer would be in had they done the job properly - in this case they'd probably have been charged another £150 or more for the repair. So them misdiagnosing has left the OP better off in the long run. 

On the other hand it does kind of seem right that if they come and misdiagnose the issue then they haven't done the job properly and you shouldn't have to pay a penny.

Of course the practical matter is always there that if they've already got the money you aren't going to court to get back £100 so maybe it's worth offering to go 50/50 on it to cover their costs? 

To me, it’s similar to taking my car into a garage and they tell me they need to replace part X. That doesn’t fix it so they tell me I need to replace part Y. Then part Z etc. From reading the motoring forum on here, the general consensus seems to be that I should pay for all the parts and time spent because they fitted them and spent time doing it...

I have sometimes thought that some posters on the motoring board have become so used to what appears to have become "custom and practice" in the motor trade that they've forgotten that consumer legislation still applies...

tightauldgit

Okell said:

Money_Grabber13579 said:

tightauldgit said:

HillStreetBlues said:

screech_78 said:

I would give them time to respond.

We work regularly with them and they are generally one of the better repair agents. 

I don’t agree that you’re due a full refund however as someone did attend. 

Have to disagree, they sent someone who wasn't up to the job. If they had sent a chimp, as least the wrong info wouldn't have been given. 
Doubt they  could then claim "Mr Shifter" did attend and ask for a fee.

It's a weird one though isn't it? Normally you'd look at what situation the customer would be in had they done the job properly - in this case they'd probably have been charged another £150 or more for the repair. So them misdiagnosing has left the OP better off in the long run. 

On the other hand it does kind of seem right that if they come and misdiagnose the issue then they haven't done the job properly and you shouldn't have to pay a penny.

Of course the practical matter is always there that if they've already got the money you aren't going to court to get back £100 so maybe it's worth offering to go 50/50 on it to cover their costs? 

To me, it’s similar to taking my car into a garage and they tell me they need to replace part X. That doesn’t fix it so they tell me I need to replace part Y. Then part Z etc. From reading the motoring forum on here, the general consensus seems to be that I should pay for all the parts and time spent because they fitted them and spent time doing it...

I have sometimes thought that some posters on the motoring board have become so used to what appears to have become "custom and practice" in the motor trade that they've forgotten that consumer legislation still applies...

The thing about repairs and diagnosis though is that it's not an exact science. Quite often you get into a situation where it could be one of three things or 'it's most likely this' or 'its either A or B but A is the cheaper fix so lets try that first'. 

A service needs to be provided with reasonable care and skill - but someone operating with reasonable care and skill can still misdiagnose something or suggest a fix that doesn't fix it. It would be unfair to say all the time, effort and cost that a reasonably skilled and careful technician puts in is worthless if it doesn't fix the problem.

It's also a lot easier to say in retrospect the engineer should have known what the problem was straight away after the problem has been identified and fixed.  

born_again

HillStreetBlues said:

tightauldgit said:

It's a weird one though isn't it? Normally you'd look at what situation the customer would be in had they done the job properly - in this case they'd probably have been charged another £150 or more for the repair. So them misdiagnosing has left the OP better off in the long run. 

It would be a interesting defence, "yes your honour, we did get it totally wrong, but by getting it wrong we saved the customer money".

tightauldgit said:

Of course the practical matter is always there that if they've already got the money you aren't going to court to get back £100 so maybe it's worth offering to go 50/50 on it to cover their costs? 

If they do offer 50% and won't budge I would take, then file a S75 for the other 50%

Only issue with S75 here is if it is just a call out fee, then the service has been provided. Not sure CC will accept a google search as proof they misdiagnosed the repair.

It will come down to the T/C that Op will have to supply to back up their case.

Adam173

born_again said:

HillStreetBlues said:

tightauldgit said:

It's a weird one though isn't it? Normally you'd look at what situation the customer would be in had they done the job properly - in this case they'd probably have been charged another £150 or more for the repair. So them misdiagnosing has left the OP better off in the long run. 

It would be a interesting defence, "yes your honour, we did get it totally wrong, but by getting it wrong we saved the customer money".

tightauldgit said:

Of course the practical matter is always there that if they've already got the money you aren't going to court to get back £100 so maybe it's worth offering to go 50/50 on it to cover their costs? 

If they do offer 50% and won't budge I would take, then file a S75 for the other 50%

Only issue with S75 here is if it is just a call out fee, then the service has been provided. Not sure CC will accept a google search as proof they misdiagnosed the repair.

It will come down to the T/C that Op will have to supply to back up their case.

Problem being there are no T&Cs. I’ve searched their website for some of which there are none, there was just the verbal agreement on the phone that the call out fee was to diagnose the issue 

HillStreetBlues

Adam173 said:

Problem being there are no T&Cs. I’ve searched their website for some of which there are none, there was just the verbal agreement on the phone that the call out fee was to diagnose the issue 

For me it doesn't pass the sniff test.
The fee was for a diagnose, so if person turns up and states "I don't know what it is" then no fee is payable as task that was paid for wasn't completed.
If the person states "it's main PCB board" then fee would be payable.
But  what if that person  was lying, and only stated it was  the main PCB board to get the fee. In that case then they wouldn't want to replace the main PCB board as it might not be the issue, and then a person would know they were lying. So what they would do is say "sorry, we can't get the main PCB board. Most people would just accept that, never knowing it was all lies.

Adam173

So. Update

after a few chase up emails, phone calls, quite a bit of pestering and reminding them of consumer rights as pointed out on this thread my call out fee has been refunded. 

Massive thanks to all the advice on here, it’s a reminder that if you’re persistent that you can win through in the end.

im just glad that I didn’t follow their initial advice that the freezer was unrepairable, it would have cost me over £1200 for a direct replacement. 

In fairness once they admitted that they could have done more, they refunded me straight away. I do wonder how many people would fall into the trap of taking their initial advice and go wouldn’t have bothered to research more though. Scary really! 

Okell

Well done.  Perseverance often pays off in the end.