Garage didn't diagnose or fix fault no refund offered

Paul10012

RefluentBeans said:

There’s a few things that don’t make sense in your story. 

1. You say your ‘normal dealer charges £90’ but you didn’t go to them. You went to a ‘small garage’ at nearly double the price. Is this because you were not at home? 

2. You say, in your last post, that this garage has a bad reputation. Why did you book it in if it had a bad reputation? I’d get it if it was the closest and it was towed there but you booked it in. 

3. You say you’re an engineer. Given that the term is quite broad in specialisation, are you qualified to say the work was incompetent? In your line of work, if you thought you fixed a problem and then the client reports the same problem, I’m sure you’d be rather taken aback from them calling you ‘incompetent and dishonest’ without letting them trying to attempt to fix their work. 

As a mechanic, you are likely aware that intermittent issues, without a route to reproduce them, are often some of the hardest to diagnose. You haven’t let the mechanic try to rectify the work, and thus I don’t actually think your rights have been violated.

It’s also worth considering that when you know a little bit about a topic, your knowledge to yourself may appear more in depth. I understand how computers work more than most people in my immediate workplace, but I also don’t profess to knowing more than the IT department. Giving someone a bit of slack is often more conducive than accusing them of being incompetent and dishonest. After all, catch more flies with honey than vinegar. 

If you feel your rights have been violated, formally complain explaining your case, then letter before action then small claims. You’d likely be claiming under the services component of the CRA, which says services should be carried out with reasonable care and skill. I personally don’t think your case is strong. 

'You say your ‘normal dealer charges £90’ but you didn’t go to them.' Are you reading the right thread?

Paul10012

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

Aylesbury_Duck

Paul10012 said:

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

Then follow the advice you want to hear, because that's clearly what you came for.  Or pay for proper legal advice.  

Aylesbury_Duck

Paul10012 said:

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

Paul10012 said:

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

You've received two responses, actually. One advises a court claim isn't worth it and isn't guaranteed to succeed, and another who suggests trying a chargeback or section 75 claim.  I suspect action through your card provider will fail, or be challenged and reversed because the garage has evidence of carrying out the work they've invoiced for.

TELLIT01

A garage will have to charge for their time investigating the fault, whether or not they resolve it.  With intermittent faults, such as that described by the OP, it's notoriously difficult to find them.  In this case the garage had the car running, and it continued to run after the OP collected it.  It wasn't an unreasonable assumption by the garage that they had fixed the problem.

Paul10012

TELLIT01 said:

It wasn't an unreasonable assumption by the garage that they had fixed the problem.

That simply isn't a credible statement. I suspected they had not fixed the problem, and they hadn't.

RefluentBeans

Paul10012 said:

TELLIT01 said:

It wasn't an unreasonable assumption by the garage that they had fixed the problem.

That simply isn't a credible statement. I suspected they had not fixed the problem, and they hadn't.

You’re really not being fair to them at all. 

They couldn’t find the problem. As with all intermittent faults, they require steps to reproduce. Did you tell them how to reproduce the fault? If not then the intermittent fault didn’t appear in their exam, and they fixed the obvious problem to see if that resolved it. 

Given how you have reacted on this thread, and that you didn’t allow the mechanic an attempt to re-examine the car, I can see why the mechanic refused to pay you any refund. 

born_again

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Paul10012 said:

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

Paul10012 said:

On the other hand I've received some helpful responses on Legal beagles. 

You've received two responses, actually. One advises a court claim isn't worth it and isn't guaranteed to succeed, and another who suggests trying a chargeback or section 75 claim.  I suspect action through your card provider will fail, or be challenged and reversed because the garage has evidence of carrying out the work they've invoiced for.

I would be surprised is any would even entertain a chargeback I can see no chargeback right. Car taken in not running, leaves running.
 S75 again. Might be a £150 bill, but going to depend on how the bill is broken down.

The whole issue is not helped by someone clearing a fault code that would have helped garage.


. I had mentioned to him that the OBD2 had registered an error with this solenoid the first time it broke down but I cleared it and it had not returned. 

So OP has in effect told garage where to look & they have found a fault in that area. So can't really blame garage. They might have spent longer & tested say electrics, but that would only have increased the cost.

Murphybear

Paul10012 said:

SiliconChip said:

Paul10012 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Depends on what you asked for and what was provided.  A chargeback will fail because work was carried out.  How long was spent on checking the car over and what was the labour charge?  I suspect you're entitled to some of the £150 back, but not all of it.

If your contract with them was "we'll find and fix the problem or no charge is due" then you'd be entitled to a full refund.

 I am an engineer myself I diagnose and fix machines, and I know technical sophistry when I see it. This seemed fishy from the moment he rang and said he couldn't find anything wrong with it. He is negligent because any mechanic should test the starting system when there is a starting fault, all he tested was the fuel system.

Why didn't you diagnose and fix this machine yourself then? Or are you in fact not technically competent to do the job on a car, which is why you there is a need for you to pay someone else to do it?

I am fixing it myself. Minus £150 taken by an incompetent, dishonest mechanic. There really are some low lives out there who give the industry the bad reputation it deserves.

That’s a bit harsh.  My husband is super fussy about his ancient Lexus and has managed to find, without any problems whatsoever, first class local mechanics in rural areas in Devon and Dorset.  He hit the jackpot once when he found, in a small village, a mechanic who had the same Lexus as his 

Jumblebumble

Paul10012 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Depends on what you asked for and what was provided.  A chargeback will fail because work was carried out.  How long was spent on checking the car over and what was the labour charge?  I suspect you're entitled to some of the £150 back, but not all of it.

If your contract with them was "we'll find and fix the problem or no charge is due" then you'd be entitled to a full refund.

The garage's explanation of work done from the receipt:

carry out diagnostic
Diagnose and rectify intermittent non start
carried out diagnostic for expected fuel pressure related faults, no faults found suspect cleared.
carry out extended road test no fault found. Investigated potential low pressure fuel pump fault, no low pressure fuel pump fitted to this model.
Investigate under bonnet found wiring error to fuel pressure control solenoid carry out repair with new connectors.

Diagnostic 1 x £40

Investigate and rectify 1.5 x £55 = £82.50

 I am an engineer myself I diagnose and fix machines, and I know technical sophistry when I see it. This seemed fishy from the moment he rang and said he couldn't find anything wrong with it. He is negligent because any mechanic should test the starting system when there is a starting fault, all he tested was the fuel system.

If you are an engineer you may realise that it is possible for an alternator to work perfectly when cold but to fail after it heats up so your recovery driver may well not be testing under the same conditions as the mechanic and got a different result
Therefore you have no idea of what tests the mechanic did or did not do.
(The same can apply to coil packs)
( before anyone doubts this I experienced this form the other side. I worked on a 2cv that was experiencing flat battery 
Checked it out and alternator was fine so advised a new battery
Still battery ran down
checked again and found alternator perfect
Decided owner had left lights on and left but still battery went flat
Finally replaced  alternator and took the one from the car to recon man
left it with them and they rang me to tell me id had gone on their on their tester and showed perfect charge !
They then rang back and said they had run it for half an hour and it had failed, but worked again when cooled down.
So please tell me was I dishonest and negligent ?
Would you have told the world I was before you were made aware of the actual facts?