Garage ruined engine when car took in for MOT
Comments
-
If it was booked in for a service then there's no argument the oil needed changing. However if it's down to your friend saying she explained the warning light was on and them saying it wasn't and she didn't it will be an uphill struggle.
Don't forget that whilst it sounds like the garage could have been more careful for the brief time they had the car your friend should have been more careful for the last 3 years!
If the garage are willing to assist in getting the car fixed I would take what they offer. Taking legal action based on a neglected car breaking during a regulated standard test is far from a sure win.0 -
If it runaway it could well be something different like turbo blew because of backpressure caused by blocked dpf0
-
"MOT before service" is the recommended (by DVSA) way to do things because it makes sense financially for the customer and efficiency sens for the garage. If there's a mega fail sheet the customer doesn't end up paying for servicing a heap of scrap and items that are duplicated (lights checks etc) only need to be done once during the MOT rather than during the service and again in the test bay.
Before carrying out the smoke test the tester is supposed to verify several things:
The smoke test must only be completed when:
• there is sufficient oil in the engine
• the oil pressure is not too low
• there is no abnormal engine noise
• the governor has not been tampered with
• the camshaft belt is in a satisfactory condition
• the engine is at its normal operating temperature
Those are specified in the information column of Section 7.4 of the test manual. Clearly, to do that, the tester needs to check the oil level.
Although it doesn't warn about excessive oil level it would be reasonable to expect a professional mechanic to know about the danger of diesel runaway because of excessive oil - and 2 litres is a LOT of excessive oil if they were only expecting 3! Reasonable professional skill would mean failing at that point for RFR 7.4.B.1 and re-testing for emissions after the service.
Whether or not the low pressure light was on is really immaterial -
and can't be proved either way in any case.0 -
Does the job sheet specify oil change and investigate oil light?0
-
-
So the owner of the garage phoned yesterday and I'll attempt to summarise below. Thanks again by the way for all the helpful comments on here, they really helped!
It was definitely diesel runaway and they did manage to stall the engine before it blew up in smoke. However, there is still damage to the engine.
The owner explained the damage to the car and stated that the cost of repair (2 parts costing £1000 and 3 hours of labour) would be £1300, however he did explain that even with that he couldn't be 100% certain this would fully resolve the damage until they have replaced the parts and tested the engine. In other words it could be significantly more to repair the damage.
Initially he was claiming that the garage could not be held liable for something that occurs to a car during the MOT. However, he did agree (eventually) that if they had done the oil change first then this problem would not have occurred based on what Fiat themselves have published about this condition. I did emphasise that based on the fact she expressly took the car in for a service and she pointed out the oil light was on (which they have now agreed to) and that this problem was preventable if they had done at least the oil change first. Also, that it was their responsibility to make sure the car was suitable for testing the emissions and that it wasn't if the car was reporting an issue with the oil. This he has also agreed to. One strange thing he said was that they did actually check the oil before the smoke test, but only carried out a dipstick test. He said that the dipstick doesn't show whether there is excessive oil, and would only tell them if there was too little oil, not if there was too much. Unless Fiats have a somewhat unique dipstick I find this very hard to believe.
The conversation then returned to who should be funding these repairs and he asked if she could claim for the damage on her insurance but I countered that his garage should really be claiming for the damage from their own insurance based on what he had agreed to earlier. He agreed to this but is not sure if he is covered and would check with them on Monday.
My prediction is that he comes back on Monday and says they are not covered and will say that she would need to claim. I have told her that it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to give her own insurance company a quick call to take their advice on this. Possibly they could fund it and then try and recover the money from the garage's insurance based on some claim of negligence although whether they would care enough for such a relatively small claim is probably debatable.
So in summary, the garage owner is a nice guy but is going to be very resistant to funding any of this and initially wasn't even prepared to waive the labour costs of replacing parts.
I do feel my friend has a case though, although as mentioned I am not particularly neutral on this.0 -
So the owner of the garage phoned yesterday and I'll attempt to summarise below. Thanks again by the way for all the helpful comments on here, they really helped!
It was definitely diesel runaway and they did manage to stall the engine before it blew up in smoke. However, there is still damage to the engine.
The owner explained the damage to the car and stated that the cost of repair (2 parts costing £1000 and 3 hours of labour) would be £1300, however he did explain that even with that he couldn't be 100% certain this would fully resolve the damage until they have replaced the parts and tested the engine. In other words it could be significantly more to repair the damage.
Initially he was claiming that the garage could not be held liable for something that occurs to a car during the MOT. However, he did agree (eventually) that if they had done the oil change first then this problem would not have occurred based on what Fiat themselves have published about this condition. I did emphasise that based on the fact she expressly took the car in for a service and she pointed out the oil light was on (which they have now agreed to) and that this problem was preventable if they had done at least the oil change first. Also, that it was their responsibility to make sure the car was suitable for testing the emissions and that it wasn't if the car was reporting an issue with the oil. This he has also agreed to. One strange thing he said was that they did actually check the oil before the smoke test, but only carried out a dipstick test. He said that the dipstick doesn't show whether there is excessive oil, and would only tell them if there was too little oil, not if there was too much. Unless Fiats have a somewhat unique dipstick I find this very hard to believe.
The conversation then returned to who should be funding these repairs and he asked if she could claim for the damage on her insurance but I countered that his garage should really be claiming for the damage from their own insurance based on what he had agreed to earlier. He agreed to this but is not sure if he is covered and would check with them on Monday.
My prediction is that he comes back on Monday and says they are not covered and will say that she would need to claim. I have told her that it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to give her own insurance company a quick call to take their advice on this. Possibly they could fund it and then try and recover the money from the garage's insurance based on some claim of negligence although whether they would care enough for such a relatively small claim is probably debatable.
So in summary, the garage owner is a nice guy but is going to be very resistant to funding any of this and initially wasn't even prepared to waive the labour costs of replacing parts.
I do feel my friend has a case though, although as mentioned I am not particularly neutral on this.
Maybe if she has legal cover on her home insurance but I can't see the car insurance being interested.0 -
So the owner of the garage phoned yesterday and I'll attempt to summarise below. Thanks again by the way for all the helpful comments on here, they really helped!
It was definitely diesel runaway and they did manage to stall the engine before it blew up in smoke. However, there is still damage to the engine.
The owner explained the damage to the car and stated that the cost of repair (2 parts costing £1000 and 3 hours of labour) would be £1300, however he did explain that even with that he couldn't be 100% certain this would fully resolve the damage until they have replaced the parts and tested the engine. In other words it could be significantly more to repair the damage.
Initially he was claiming that the garage could not be held liable for something that occurs to a car during the MOT. However, he did agree (eventually) that if they had done the oil change first then this problem would not have occurred based on what Fiat themselves have published about this condition. I did emphasise that based on the fact she expressly took the car in for a service and she pointed out the oil light was on (which they have now agreed to) and that this problem was preventable if they had done at least the oil change first. Also, that it was their responsibility to make sure the car was suitable for testing the emissions and that it wasn't if the car was reporting an issue with the oil. This he has also agreed to. One strange thing he said was that they did actually check the oil before the smoke test, but only carried out a dipstick test. He said that the dipstick doesn't show whether there is excessive oil, and would only tell them if there was too little oil, not if there was too much. Unless Fiats have a somewhat unique dipstick I find this very hard to believe.
The conversation then returned to who should be funding these repairs and he asked if she could claim for the damage on her insurance but I countered that his garage should really be claiming for the damage from their own insurance based on what he had agreed to earlier. He agreed to this but is not sure if he is covered and would check with them on Monday.
My prediction is that he comes back on Monday and says they are not covered and will say that she would need to claim. I have told her that it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to give her own insurance company a quick call to take their advice on this. Possibly they could fund it and then try and recover the money from the garage's insurance based on some claim of negligence although whether they would care enough for such a relatively small claim is probably debatable.
So in summary, the garage owner is a nice guy but is going to be very resistant to funding any of this and initially wasn't even prepared to waive the labour costs of replacing parts.
I do feel my friend has a case though, although as mentioned I am not particularly neutral on this.
Strictly speaking, i wouldn't.
It may end up recorded as a "loss" or "accident" on the insurance database and that might increase future insurance premiums for her.
As the garage have carried out the MOT emissions test whilst the oil light is on, they have been negligent and i would expect anyone to find them fully liable.
As others mentioned, they have not followed the guidelines set out by DVSA.
However from a moral standpoint i'd tell your friend to suck it up. The oil light was on dispute a large amount of liquid in the sump. As the sump was full of diesel fuel and 3 year old engine oil, the combination has likely clogged or damaged the oil pump. Even if the service was done there is no guarantee the light would have went out. In fact i'd suspect it would still be on and i'd suspect if it got through the MOT without failing, it would have died shortly afterwards regardless.
It might have had approx 55k miles on it but the lifestyle and service intervals would mean it's probably got the same wear as a a same car with about 200,000 motorway miles.All your base are belong to us.0 -
Just drop a new engine in, a quick search about £250 for a decent one.
Goes as low as £175 for a working engine.
Come to an arrangement on parts and labour bearing in mind she had half destroyed the engine by that point anyway and the fact they was negligent0 -
Car doesn't have an oil service for 3 years, has warning lights on the dashboard which are ignored. The car fails while being tested at an MOT centre, and then blames the garage.
I'd be furious if it was my garage and a customer tried to do this to me.
However they'd neglected basic checks to perform before the test. It'd probably have happened in the next day or two of driving if it didn't happen at the garage. Who would the owner blame then? Doesn't sound like they'd point the finger at themselves.
I'd say blame is 80% owner and 20% garage. I think a reduced/discounted labour bill for repairing the car would be a fair outcome.Aiming to be debt free by Xmas 2020
Starting debt Jan 2019 £12446
Currently £10,3060
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards