Defective car parts...

RefluentBeans

MrKieron said:

so what's the chances of a small claims court backing me up on ths?

It depends how compelling the argument is. I don’t think it’s overly compelling. Especially for claims of ‘inconvenience and distress’. Unless you can show actual damages from this - like counselling costs etc. Not enough to say ‘stress’ and claim £500 or something. 

MrKieron

Their product was of unmerchantable quality and not fit for purpose but it looks like there's nothing I can do about it. Is there even any point taking this to trading standards. It looks like they can just get away with this and I have to suffer the cost.

RefluentBeans

MrKieron said:

Their product was of unmerchantable quality and not fit for purpose but it looks like there's nothing I can do about it. Is there even any point taking this to trading standards. It looks like they can just get away with this and I have to suffer the cost.

They didn’t ‘get away with it’ - they refunded you and that is all you’re entitled to, unless you can show gross negligence. The issue is when you’re buying online and second hand you don’t know what you’re getting especially if you can’t assess it/have the technical ability to tell good from bad. 

The question you could ask instead is why didn’t your mechanic say it wasn’t fit for purpose? 

Like I said - you get far more protection when you pay for the whole service from one company, but it does cost more (as they have relationships with suppliers and know good from bad). 

MrKieron

I think from from the mechanic's point of view, the error was so subtle that it wasn't at all obvious, but, it's quite reasonable to assume that contrary to the description in the listing, it had not in fact been tested as it could never have passed any test. the mechanic made a video of the fault shown in comparison to another working turbo. At first, on initial installation, he thought it was an actuator fault but it turned out to be the housing was rotated by about 30 degrees. the assembly error did in fact manifest itself as an actuator fault and travel was impaired by the errant rotation in the housing. I wonder how many mechanics would've spotted that. I'm not a mechanic so I can't be sure but this guy has definitely fitted a few before this.

RefluentBeans

MrKieron said:

I think from from the mechanic's point of view, the error was so subtle that it wasn't at all obvious, but, it's quite reasonable to assume that contrary to the description in the listing, it had not in fact been tested as it could never have passed any test. the mechanic made a video of the fault shown in comparison to another working turbo. At first, on initial installation, he thought it was an actuator fault but it turned out to be the housing was rotated by about 30 degrees. the assembly error did in fact manifest itself as an actuator fault and travel was impaired by the errant rotation in the housing. I wonder how many mechanics would've spotted that. I'm not a mechanic so I can't be sure but this guy has definitely fitted a few before this.

That’s rather my point - whether a mechanic should’ve known or not. The fitting costs have to go back to the mechanic and any claim should be against them. If you can’t say that the mechanic should’ve known if the device was faulty or not, then any claim will likely be unsuccessful. 

I think you’ll struggle to get to get the money back from the retailer. Retailers are allowed to make mistakes (such as selling a faulty product) without being sued into oblivion. You would have to show they knowingly sold a device that was faulty - which is not easy. For example - if they don’t do the testing themselves then they are relying on someone else to say the product is good, and sold it in good faith. 

Ultimately - the consumer rights for the product lies with the person who sold you the product, and fitting it with the person who fitted the product. If an experienced engineer couldn’t tell the product was faulty before fitting they were either negligent or the device was not evidently faulty to a professional. If the device wasn’t evidently faulty then I’m afraid that the limit is the cost of the product (which by all accounts from you has been refunded); and as the fitting was successful, there’s no claim to have against the fitter, and no consequential claim to the retailer. Unfortunately, buying separately loses some consumer rights for you, as you effectively are coordinating the fitting by purchasing the product and then giving it to someone to fit. It should really be on the person coordinating to check the quality of the part before fitting it. 

Of course, you will likely disagree. If you believe you have a case, you can try to sue the fitter or the supplier. I think there’s better odds with the fitter as you can claim they should’ve known if it was faulty or not. But if they’ve ever told you they can get one in for you or you can supply one yourself, they may well claim that they believed you’d have checked the quality of it first. I don’t think the argument against the retailer or the fitter has legs to go to court in all honesty, but other people have won cases that I’d have the same to. All depends on how you present, and how compelling you are. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

It’s called consequential damages - and in UK law it’s generally not really seen that people and companies can be held to this. It’s only very negligent behaviour that can penetrate and allow for consequential damage. 

It’s the reason that people are recommended to get the part and fitting by the same company (as if the part is bad, then there was a whole failure of service). This is, however, normally more expensive as the parts used are normally good and new (or second hand parts from reputable companies, not just eBay). Buying parts and getting them fitted relies on the fitter knowing if the part is good or bad. Arguably, there’s a fitting claim against the mechanic for not knowing the part was bad as there is an expected level of competence which the mechanic has failed to show. 

In any case, faulty parts are limited to the cost of the faulty part. Unless you can show there was extreme negligence and even then you’d have to claim through small claims more than likely. 

There is normal damages and consequential damages, normal are those that are a direct result of the breach, consequential are those that do not flow directly from the breach. 

The cost of the first install and the removal are a direct result of the breach in my view and as such are normal damages for which negligence isn’t required to claim damages as far as I’m aware.

My view would be the trader who sold the turbo should pay the labour for it to have been installed and removed. 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

It’s called consequential damages - and in UK law it’s generally not really seen that people and companies can be held to this. It’s only very negligent behaviour that can penetrate and allow for consequential damage. 

It’s the reason that people are recommended to get the part and fitting by the same company (as if the part is bad, then there was a whole failure of service). This is, however, normally more expensive as the parts used are normally good and new (or second hand parts from reputable companies, not just eBay). Buying parts and getting them fitted relies on the fitter knowing if the part is good or bad. Arguably, there’s a fitting claim against the mechanic for not knowing the part was bad as there is an expected level of competence which the mechanic has failed to show. 

In any case, faulty parts are limited to the cost of the faulty part. Unless you can show there was extreme negligence and even then you’d have to claim through small claims more than likely. 

There is normal damages and consequential damages, normal are those that are a direct result of the breach, consequential are those that do not flow directly from the breach. 

The cost of the first install and the removal are a direct result of the breach in my view and as such are normal damages for which negligence isn’t required to claim damages as far as I’m aware.

My view would be the trader who sold the turbo should pay the labour for it to have been installed and removed. 

Strongly disagree - the OP arranged the fitting. It was down to them to check the quality of the part before installation, or ask the mechanic (as part of the reasonable skill and care aspect of the CRA) to inspect the item. In any case, there’s an argument to be had that the installer botched the install and caused damage to the product which made it non functional. 

Again - it’s a warning to people to not buy cheap stuff on the internet (especially eBay where the seller may not even be a retailer) without being able to inspect the product (or even know what they’re looking for). 

MrKieron

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

RefluentBeans said:

It’s called consequential damages - and in UK law it’s generally not really seen that people and companies can be held to this. It’s only very negligent behaviour that can penetrate and allow for consequential damage. 

It’s the reason that people are recommended to get the part and fitting by the same company (as if the part is bad, then there was a whole failure of service). This is, however, normally more expensive as the parts used are normally good and new (or second hand parts from reputable companies, not just eBay). Buying parts and getting them fitted relies on the fitter knowing if the part is good or bad. Arguably, there’s a fitting claim against the mechanic for not knowing the part was bad as there is an expected level of competence which the mechanic has failed to show. 

In any case, faulty parts are limited to the cost of the faulty part. Unless you can show there was extreme negligence and even then you’d have to claim through small claims more than likely. 

There is normal damages and consequential damages, normal are those that are a direct result of the breach, consequential are those that do not flow directly from the breach. 

The cost of the first install and the removal are a direct result of the breach in my view and as such are normal damages for which negligence isn’t required to claim damages as far as I’m aware.

My view would be the trader who sold the turbo should pay the labour for it to have been installed and removed. 

Strongly disagree - the OP arranged the fitting. It was down to them to check the quality of the part before installation, or ask the mechanic (as part of the reasonable skill and care aspect of the CRA) to inspect the item. In any case, there’s an argument to be had that the installer botched the install and caused damage to the product which made it non functional. 

Again - it’s a warning to people to not buy cheap stuff on the internet (especially eBay where the seller may not even be a retailer) without being able to inspect the product (or even know what they’re looking for). 

I can absolutely categorically guarantee you that the fitter did not cause the problem The paint marks on the casing bolts were still intact when the comparison video was made and when the item was returned. It is absolutely impossible for the fitter to have caused this. Secondly, these people claim to be experts in the field and the item was not in the lease cheap. I'm aware of 'buy cheap, buy twice' and as an important component in the whole assembly I understood the need to get a quality item. I could easily have just got a salvaged item at a third the cost and no surcharge/postage complications for a part exchange of my old unit.

My intention is not to sue into oblivion as I don't think I'm being unreasonable in asking the vendor to make good on delivering a faulty product although I do see your point about being able to check the item for myself. I bought from a reputable vendor on the basis they they had tested the product but it is apparent in retrospect that that was not possible as the item could ever have passed any tests in the condition in which it arrived to me. The company is a Ltd. company and not a random scrap dealer.

MrKieron

I might add, it's a public limited company trading as a specialist turbo reconditioner that only sells turbos...

RefluentBeans

Then take them to court - if they’re not willing to pay for the labour and you feel you have a case - that is your next step. Again - I think this would be consequential damages and they’re significantly harder to prove. As would be any immaterial damages that you can’t quantify (stress etc) the cost of. If you do go to court, be sure to include filing fees in your claim, but personally I would leave out anything that isn’t related to the fitting and refitting.