Can I claim for damages against a car repair firm for refusing to honour their 2-year warranty?

Imabitmythedreally

Can anyone help? I had a new exhaust ‘fitted’ just over a year ago by a well-known Nationwide auto care company. From day one I had problems as it was fitted with very little ground clearance. They tried and failed to rectify, but for me some other more important life events took over and this was not my priority. Recently, I noticed that it was getting even closer to the ground and asked the company to honour their two-year warranty, which they refused saying ‘we would have never fitted it in the first place’. Having wrote a formal complaint on the same day as their refusal to honour the two-year warranty, a couple of weeks later, the exhaust fell off whilst driving along a smart motorway. It was only by luck that I was able to pull over immediately to one of the last remaining parts of the hard shoulder just after a slip road. Eventually, I got a response from their EXEC office that they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car, but I want to know if and how I go about claiming for direct and consequential losses if they refuse an out of court settlement. It could have so easily been a serious accident on a smart motorway and I would not have known a one year old exhaust was going to fall off. Any advice will be gratefully received. Thank you.    

Car_54

There seems to be a contradiction. Your title says they're refusing to honour their warranty, but  now they say "they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car".

If they do that, then they'll have done more than honour the warranty. What else are you planning to claim? It's extremely unlikely that the warranty includes a hire car, let alone consequential losses.

redped

Imabitmythedreally said:

Eventually, I got a response from their EXEC office that they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car

They've agreed to fix the exhaust, which is all you can expect. Why the need for a hire car? Surely the exhaust can be fixed in (say) an hour or so?

Imabitmythedreally said:

how I go about claiming for direct and consequential losses if they refuse an out of court settlement

Settlement for what? What losses have you incurred?

Imabitmythedreally said:

It could have so easily been a serious accident on a smart motorway   

But there was no accident. Don't be so dramatic.

MeteredOut

What "direct and consequential losses" are you claiming?

Imabitmythedreally

(Removed by Forum Team)

Actually, it was Friday night rush hour on the M4 while driving with my young daughter. For those of you who have broken down on the motorway, you'll know it's not pleasant especially when you're looking after your daughter. So for all you jokers out there, wise up and try to be a little more considerate. We were lucky that there was a hard shoulder to pull over onto whilst we waited for nearly 45 minutes for the recovery. As for the other comments. It took the garage nearly a week to fix. If they had done the replacement when asked then the breakdown would not have happened. 

Imabitmythedreally

redped said:

Imabitmythedreally said:

Eventually, I got a response from their EXEC office that they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car

They've agreed to fix the exhaust, which is all you can expect. Why the need for a hire car? Surely the exhaust can be fixed in (say) an hour or so?

Imabitmythedreally said:

how I go about claiming for direct and consequential losses if they refuse an out of court settlement

Settlement for what? What losses have you incurred?

Imabitmythedreally said:

It could have so easily been a serious accident on a smart motorway   

But there was no accident. Don't be so dramatic.

See my comment below about being 'dramatic'. Shame on you

Imabitmythedreally

Car_54 said:

There seems to be a contradiction. Your title says they're refusing to honour their warranty, but  now they say "they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car".

If they do that, then they'll have done more than honour the warranty. What else are you planning to claim? It's extremely unlikely that the warranty includes a hire car, let alone consequential losses.

Thanks for your comment. If they had honoured the warranty when I first asked the incident on the M4 would not have happened. It was only when I reported what had happened (photo evidence, etc) that they decided to honour it. Hence my question, because the breakdown was solely due to the exhaust falling off could have caused a serious incident, meant my daughter and I had no car for the first 5 days of our holidays I can claim for damages? I have no idea, but hoped to get some sensible responses rather than those talking about nuns and kittens (very disappointing).

Mildly_Miffed

The warranty is there to make good any issues in the parts or fitting. They're doing that.

Belatedly, perhaps, but they ARE doing it.

That's all you can reasonably expect.

There is precisely zero scope for compensation for something that didn't happen (but might have). There is precisely zero scope for compensation for any perceived trauma or upset, no matter how deserved you may feel it is. Vote with your wallet next time you need an exhaust or tyre.

redped

Imabitmythedreally said:

redped said:

Imabitmythedreally said:

Eventually, I got a response from their EXEC office that they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car

They've agreed to fix the exhaust, which is all you can expect. Why the need for a hire car? Surely the exhaust can be fixed in (say) an hour or so?

Imabitmythedreally said:

how I go about claiming for direct and consequential losses if they refuse an out of court settlement

Settlement for what? What losses have you incurred?

Imabitmythedreally said:

It could have so easily been a serious accident on a smart motorway   

But there was no accident. Don't be so dramatic.

See my comment below about being 'dramatic'. Shame on you

You still haven't said what losses you have incurred.

Again, there was no accident.  Could have, might have been, etc. don't count for anything, especially when you gave the bare amount of info and then drip feed more details when you don't like what people have said.  So no shame on me.

Imabitmythedreally

redped said:

Imabitmythedreally said:

redped said:

Imabitmythedreally said:

Eventually, I got a response from their EXEC office that they would get the repairs done and a belated provided a hire car

They've agreed to fix the exhaust, which is all you can expect. Why the need for a hire car? Surely the exhaust can be fixed in (say) an hour or so?

Imabitmythedreally said:

how I go about claiming for direct and consequential losses if they refuse an out of court settlement

Settlement for what? What losses have you incurred?

Imabitmythedreally said:

It could have so easily been a serious accident on a smart motorway   

But there was no accident. Don't be so dramatic.

See my comment below about being 'dramatic'. Shame on you

You still haven't said what losses you have incurred.

Again, there was no accident.  Could have, might have been, etc. don't count for anything, especially when you gave the bare amount of info and then drip feed more details when you don't like what people have said.  So no shame on me.

I have no problem about what people say, but I do have a problem with people who arr quick to opinionate when they are ignorant. I appreciate you taking the time to respond but no need to add any more. Thank you.

sheramber

You are posting on a open forum where anybody can  reply, whether opinionated or not.