The County Court: nymph Vs Car-Dealership
Posted by: naim_nymph on 23 October 2008
The case concerned a contract of vehicle service between myself, and a very prestigious, ‘posh and professional looking’ local car dealership, who represents the make of vehicle in question (that I own), and how they breached the contract by misdiagnosing the fault on my vehicle.
The misdiagnosis led to much unnecessary work on my vehicle at great expense which was passed on to me.
Also, some of the unnecessary work carried out by the car-dealership was beyond their technical abilities, and as such, my vehicle was presented back to me in a faulty condition caused by their lack of skill.
Very soon after the service it became very apparent that there were discrepancies and problems, and although my findings were explained and discussed with the staff at the car-dealership, their attitude was to deny any wrong doing, blame other parties, and blame my vehicle for having other faults.
It was proven that they did not have the skills to repair my vehicle and preferred to cover up their bad workmanship with deceptive reasoning.
The only symptom the vehicle had, was an ‘Engine Warning Light’ that came on intermittently so the job for the car-dealership, was to diagnose why this light came on, and if necessary, fix the fault.
The car-dealership, using a code gained from the computer management, diagnosed an impending fuel-pump failure, and the need to remove the fuel-pump, send it off to a specialist for a “strip down” and “overhaul“.
Being a blonde woman of middle age years, I foolishly trusted them at this moment in time, and with the worry around the reliability of my car, I let them go ahead with this service. The car was with them off the road for a week.
The bill came to £922 : (
But the car-dealership also presented my vehicle back to me in a faulty condition caused by their erroneous servicing technique, and thus, the vehicle eventually broke down (due to non-start) and was taken via recovery truck to 'pump specialist' garage where upon I had to pay an additional £300 for them to diagnose and correct the problems to my engine that the car-dealership had caused. They said that the ’car-dealership had not put the pump back in properly and the pump timing was wrong!
All this clearly documented in engineer reports, letters, quotations etc.
It turned out to be rather easy gaining the information of what happened. The car-dealership asked me, after a few weeks of complaining about the car being far worse than before, if I would mind going round directly to the pump specialist and talking to them about it, because after all, they rebuilt the pump and it’s obviously their problem really etc…
I was quite surprised to find the pump-specialist was another drive-in service garage only half a mile away from the dealership. So I went around to speak with them.
What they told me was amazing!
“Rebuild your pump”? said the man at the Pump Specialist place,
“No, we didn’t rebuild your pump, it didn’t need one, there was nothing wrong with it!
I said that they must have done something because this has cost me £922 and their cost to the dealership on my invoice is £415, to which he replied,
“Here’s the paperwork and receipt… it was £300. We changed a faulty advance solenoid and spent a couple of hours labour checking the pump on a test-rig. I don’t know why they took the pump off just for a solenoid failure, it’s a very easy thing to diagnose and change.. Takes less than an hour“!
Trading Standards questioned the dealership about the discrepancy between the £415 they charged me and the £300 cost from the pump specialist… The dealership blamed the pump specialist for a telephone quote error and quickly sent me a refund of £115
(The other £622 was for the 'unnecessary' pump removal and refit).
They also said that it did not matter if the pump was not rebuilt, it was fixed, and the procedure they used was the correct ‘Technical Instruction’ from the Motor Corporation.
(So, as far as they’re concerned, they did a good ol’ back slapping job).
The evidence I produced in the court was contained within a 70 page file, 11 pages being my ‘statement of case‘, and an index to over a dozen letters of complaint, letters to Trading Standards, engineer reports, costs and technical facts and quotations. All the proof one would need to fully demonstrate a successful claim.
Proved in documentation was the fact that the only reason the Engine Warning Light was coming on intermittently, was a ‘minor’ electrical component in need of replacement. This component (an advance solenoid) has a cost of £90, requires 1 hour labour, and plus VAT the total cost to customer that should be £171. (There is no need for expensive pump removal/refit).
£922 less £115 refund = £807
breakdown repair bill = £300
Legal expenses....... = £200
Out of pocket expenses= £100
Total cost of case......£1400ish and not including approx' 100 hours of various activity.
The law I used against this car-dealership in the county court was the ‘Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 by failing to repair my car using reasonable care and skill.
(The man at Trading standards told me the optimum word here is ‘reasonable’).
~<>~
Do you think they were reasonable?
Anyway, it’s all over now : )
So how do you think I got on at the County Court?
nymph
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Ian G.
quote:
Originally posted by naim_nymph:
So how do you think I got on at the County Court?
nymph
Likely you lost 'cos they could afford a fancy-pants slimey lawyer to protect their reputation.....
Ian
(with apologies to any fancy-pants slimely layers on here
)
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by naim_nymph
quote:
Originally posted by Ian G.:
Likely you lost 'cos they could afford a fancy-pants slimey lawyer to protect their reputation.....
Ian
(with apologies to any fancy-pants slimely lawyers on here
)
They probably have lawyers available to question the claim and procedure used, both the franchisee car-dealership and especially the Motor Corp.
But this was a Small Claims Court, so only 3 people in the courtroom...
The slime-ball service manager representing the car-dealership (who looked very smug all the while), my good self, and 'The Beak'.
It was a bit like that shootout in the Clint Eastwood film, The Good, Bad and the Ugly.
I’m ‘Good’ btw : )
nymph
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Sir Crispin Cupcake
I hope you won - when are you going to tell us?
Rich
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Bosh
I bet it was a B*W dealership wasnt it, IME of 4 different ones, it doesnt matter what sex, age, etc you are all easy targets for succumbing to large bills for unnecessary work. If you challenge them they try all sorts of tactics to make you pay/agree to recommended work. After all you are driving a "prestige" vehicle
FWIW though I have had not much better treatment from Porsche and Ferrari main dealers either. That why I stick to the independents unless I need the MD stamp
PS. Bet you lost, after all we cant have you wasting the service departments time having to reply to court cases again can we? They have far more important customers to slime
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
Cannot be an Alfa dealer
;
a) They had the parts in stock
b) It did not take four visits for them to (admittedly incorrectly) diagnose the fault.
c) The vehicle is clearly out of warranty. most Alfa's are dead by then.
By the way, I think you lost the claim. The dealership will point to the diagnostic code, service manuals from the company etc and say they followed correct manufacturer procedure (which may well state 'replace rather than repair').
Bruce
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by GML
quote:
Originally posted by naim_nymph:I’m ‘Good’ btw : )
The clue is the quote above.
You won your case, I hope.
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by BigH47
It's good to know that the standard of dealers is improving not. This is the sort of crap I have seen/got since I started having to deal with them(mid '60s).I had forgotten more about cars than these people know. I would always go (if I really had to) and pretend I didn't know what was wrong, some of the bullshit answers were quite amazing.
Not sure which make of vehicle main_nymph is talking about,but sounds just like our now defunct Ford garage. It's reassuring to note from other posters that so called premium brands seem no better.
I do hope you won n_n.
Howard
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by count.d
I hope you won, but because of the effort you've taken in telling us this story, I fear you may have lost Nymph.
The dealer would have used the argument that they'd followed all the correct procedures as written in some small print (which he would have presented at the court).
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Nigel Cavendish
Without having the benefit of seeing the documentation, it is hard to say. If the court accepts that they misdiagnosed the original fault and that misdiagnosis was due to their negligence or lack of skill, and if it finds the subsequent breakdown was a direct result of that, then you have a good chance of success.
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by tonym
I reckon you lost too N-N. Their "Contract" with you had some nasty little get-out clause & they'll claim they took reasonable steps to identify the problem.
The attitude of some of these so-called "Prestige" dealerships stinks. A few years ago I had a MB and at its eighteen thousand mile service I was called by the service manager who informed me the rear discs were "Badly corroded" and required replacement! Being a company car I suppose he thought I'd just tell him to go ahead. I told him what I thought and asked to see the corroded discs when I came to collect the car. Surprise surprise, he then told me he would try and "clean them up".
The car went on to do 130K miles (although not very reliably) and the rear discs were never mentioned again...
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Don Atkinson
I imagine you won the case.
I have based this statement on a number of "facts" as you have described them in your opening post.
You state it as two facts "that they did not have the skills to repair my vehicle and preferred to cover up their bad workmanship with deceptive reasoning"
You also state "the fact that the only reason the Engine Warning Light was coming on intermittently, was a ‘minor’ electrical component in need of replacement. This component (an advance solenoid) has a cost of £90, requires 1 hour labour, and plus VAT the total cost to customer that should be £171. (There is no need for expensive pump removal/refit)".
I am also assuming that "The sale of goods act" covers the provision of garage services including the supply and fitting of replacement parts - based on the fact that both Trading Standards and your Legal team advised you to present the case on this basis.
To my mind, the garage failed to engage personnel with the necessary skills to diagnose the fault on your car (actually your statement of fact implies this so I have presumed this is true). They relied instead on the output of a computer. The computer output was either inadequate or the interpretive skills of the technician were inadequate. Either way, the garage failed to use reasonable skill to carry out its side of the contract regarding diagnosis. The evidence of the sub-contractor supports the view that the diagnosis should have been straight forward if carried out by a competent person.
The prestige garage have also been guilty of deception when telling you what the fault was and how they fixed it. They have also been deceptive in preparing the invoice for the work. The sub-contractor provided evidence to this effect.
However, as with all court cases, especially in the small claims court, the Registrar can only base his judgement on the facts as presented. If you presented your case clearly, fully and concisely, you should have won. If you became emotional, and failed to present your evidence clearly, the "beak" would have difficulty with his decision.
Against all this, we all, even garages, rely on "the computer" these days. If the motor industry has managed to established that the accuracy of fault diagnosis is computer-dependent, then you probably lost, and we're all in the sh*t.
I hope you won.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
...If you became emotional, and failed to present your evidence clearly...
Cheers
Don
Quite right Don, it is well known that women tend to become "emotional", poor things.
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Quite right Don, it is well known that women tend to become "emotional", poor things.
It can happen to anybody, not just "a blonde woman of middle age years".
Especially under pressure, even in the small claims court. Even more so when the Beak doesn't seem to have followed your line of reasoning. And particularly when the Beak and the Motor dealer are clearly members of the same Lodge.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by garyi
The last time I used a dealership, some years was for a ford ka.
For the service two new wipers had been fitted for £55 +VAT
I told them to remove them there and then and remove it from the bill which, to be fair they did.
They also charged for spark plugs and I later found that they had not replaced them.
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by naim_nymph
Thanks for all the interesting replies, guys!
I can see this is a quite an emotive subject that stirs a passionate response in hope that we, here in Rip-Off Britain, will one day have car-dealerships who behave with integrity, honesty, fair play, and not to mention common sense...
No… don't hold your breath : (
When my 7 year old vehicle (65,000miles) was first presented to the dealership (16 months ago now) the spoken dialogue from the service advisor was based around the fuel-pump being worn out, or malfunctioning. This was about the mechanical part that pumps.... the displacement of fluid from one place to another, and there was this need to have this pump dissembled, rebuilt, and it would have to come off the vehicle to do this...
So what i actually agreed to was a pump rebuild job, and even after the car was returned to me and i'd paid £922, i believed my car had a rebuilt pump.
However, on the job card it said, 'remove fuel pump from vehicle and send to specialist to strip down'. This is the only thing i signed before the work started.
On another piece of paperwork it had the estimate for pump ‘overhaul‘.
But 'Overhaul' is a slightly ambiguous word. Look it up in the dictionary and see what is says… examine carefully for faults, necessary repairs etc…
I always thought it meant something more practical than that.
After the service when I picked up my vehicle and paid the bill, the invoice was very odd.
Most of it was about the removal and refit, but also..
TIMING CONTROL MALFUNCTION
REMOVED INJECTION PUMP FOR SPECIALIST REPAIR…………………….. £415
The ‘timing control’ is another term for advance solenoid, so they knew what had been done.
Note, no mention of rebuild although I have still been charged the full estimated quote for a rebuild cost.
I only got the ‘partial’ refund of £115 when Trading Standards got involved, 6 weeks later.
Their defence was entirely based around this concept of ‘Technical Instruction’ from the Motor Corp’.
The Pump Specialist told me that they knew what kind of diagnostics the dealership had, and it could only give information about an ‘area of concern’. In this case the fuel-pump action was not working properly all the time, and as is often the case with cars around 7 years old, electrical components can give up.
Some web-site information from the pump specialist marketing site, this is based on the common-rail diesel engine used in my vehicle. This was written in 1999, so why is this ignored in 2007 ?
"In the past, diesel distributors very often only worked with Test Benches in a quasi laboratory atmosphere, and had no workshop facilities to handle vehicles. With the Diesel Diagnostic Centre this is changing. We are encouraging our distributors to develop their premises to include vehicle bays so that they can take cars into their premises and work on them rather than simply remove the pump and work on it on a test bench. This is vital because the introduction of electronics has created integrated diesel systems and faults in these systems can often only be diagnosed while the pump is on the car"
That last sentence is very interesting! : )
nymph
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by Gary S.
Since we're getting into anecdotes here, my mother used to have a Peogot (205 I think?), which she bought new and used to pull to one side under braking. At the next service, they found the left hand pad on the near side was completely worn away, whilst all the other pads were fine (indicating the caliper was seized). They tried charging her for it, pointing out the problem was caused by the way she braked!!
My mother, who incidentally has a Class 1 HGV licence as she use to drive a low-loader for the family business, told the mechanic she must be a bloody good driver to be able to wear out one pad on one side when she only had one pedal to press. Eventually they agreed it was a warrantee issue. She was blond and middle age at the time also!
Come on Nymph, what was the verdict?
Gary
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by csl
you split the difference. the judge determined that the mechanic acted in good faith by removing the component in the general area where the fault code told him to look. however he did not fix the problem so he is not entitled to the full market rate of the service. the judge did reprimand him for the overcharge though. he also recommended that you find a new mechanic.
an ex girlfriend had been similarly ripped off by the local subaru dealer in boston. they really must have hated cleaning up my dog's poop after a number of evening walks that happened to take us by the deserted car lot.
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by naim_nymph
quote:
Originally posted by csl:
you split the difference. the judge determined that the mechanic acted in good faith by removing the component in the general area where the fault code told him to look. however he did not fix the problem so he is not entitled to the full market rate of the service. the judge did reprimand him for the overcharge though. he also recommended that you find a new mechanic.
I'm very impressed, well done, csl! : )
Posted on: 23 October 2008 by naim_nymph
The Verdict
I represented my case fairly well, didn’t forget to mention any of the really important reasons for this dispute, the only problem I suffered being the 10:00 AM kick off time which caused me some tiredness due to my normal night-shift job and routine. I think this made me look a bit subdued and nervous, which I didn’t really mind because I didn’t what to come over all bitter and twisted ; )
In my opinion the defendant didn’t speak as well as I, fumbling about with what little paperwork he’d brought to court, his tactics were denial, deception, and dishonesty as usual ...and half those lies he told weren’t even true.
The judge said that he’d read all my file, and he said it was clearly put and nicely laid out to follow without getting puzzled over the time-span or events.
(I bet he thought it highly portentous too, for such a lowly nymph to put together such plan of attack!)
After he listened to both myself and the defendant, and after a much more clarification from both parties the judge asked us to wait in the reception for a short while, for he needed to sum things up which should not take too long.
Half and hour later we were ushered back into the courtroom to hear the judge reiterate all the main points of the case very well, (I was actually quite taken back how well the judge had summarized everything so accurately).
Turning to me, the judge said that my claim was made up into two parts, the first being a claim in that the dealership did not use the correct service procedure which amounted to excessive expense, and the second part being that the dealership did not have the skills to refit the fuel pump correctly.
The first part of the claim is a failure because the dealership was instructed to use this 'technical procedure' by the ‘Manufacturer’ of the vehicle.
However the evidence of faulty servicing within the second claim is accepted so it is ordered that the dealership pay the costs of repair that I paid to put things right plus the court costs and £50 for out of pocket expenses.
For some strange reason this amounted to £478.75
I will always feel very angry about this decision to fail the first part of my claim.
I pointed out to the judge that the dealership had another option, to simply tell me after the diagnostics that the pump specialist was just half a mile up the road, and to go directly there with my car because they could look after me a lot better that they could. But they choose to rip me off instead. (But this is not ilegal, apparently)
The overall decision of the court was to allow this dealership to conduct a service to a vehicle that they did not have skills to perform!
I believed the contract between myself and the dealership was to rebuild a worn pump?
(The dealership had denied this story since long ago and any rumours of a contract could not be adequately substantiated. However, a lucrative contract does exist between the dealership and the Motor Corporation, please refer to that, and it's legal too!)
The ‘Manufacturer’ says to do it this way! Of course, they make lots of money out of unnecessary work, and ‘usually’ the customer never finds out.
Also, the pump ‘Manufacturer’ does not agree, and states very clearly to leave the pump in the vehicle! My file included much evidence from the pump manufacturer in complete disagreement to the vehicle Manufacturer!
My final remark to the judge was to say that the Motor Corporation was the Judge and Jury in this case, all you’ve done is bow down to them.
That made him a bit angry, lucky it was just about time to leave the court!
nymph
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by Bob McC
quote:
and half those lies he told weren’t even true
errr... yes.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by BigH47
Good to see incompetence still is rewarded and also supported by the criminal system.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by count.d
quote:
The ‘Manufacturer’ says to do it this way! Of course, they make lots of money out of unnecessary work, and ‘usually’ the customer never finds out.
Also, the pump ‘Manufacturer’ does not agree, and states very clearly to leave the pump in the vehicle! My file included much evidence from the pump manufacturer in complete disagreement to the vehicle Manufacturer
As I thought in my previous post (not smug, but can't think of any other way of putting it) the dealer was only following a procedure written by the manufacturer. Your root argument is with the manufacturer and surely if you don't agree, you could refuse the compensation and sue the manufacturer?
The other option is you don't buy one of the manufacturer's cars again as you don't like their servicing methods.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by Bruce Woodhouse
quote:
Originally posted by count.d:
[QUOTE] The ‘Manufacturer’ says to do it this way! Of course, they make lots of money out of unnecessary work, and ‘usually’ the customer never finds out.
Also, the pump ‘Manufacturer’ does not agree, and states very clearly to leave the pump in the vehicle! My file included much evidence from the pump manufacturer in complete disagreement to the vehicle Manufacturer
As I thought in my previous post (not smug, but can't think of any other way of putting it) the dealer was only following a procedure written by the manufacturer. QUOTE]
Ditto.
If they followed maufacturer guidance they are protected.
Perhaps the manufacturer would say that replacing the entire pump with a complete (and warrantied) new item is better than piecemeal repair of individual components. They may be actually be right of course! Certainly they have an obvious interest in supplying replacement parts vs repairing an item.
Bruce
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by csl
i am not sure how small claims court works where you live, but suing the car company in small claims court might be more hassle than it is worth. often, the claim needs to be made in the county where the person or business you are suing-exists. the car manufacturer's decision to ignore the pump manufacturer's recommendations is odd, but they probably write off trivial decisions like this. Ford after all considered exploding gas tanks, and the subsequent lawsuits, to be more cost effective than a recall. I like the power of voting with my wallet. there is probably a local mechanic who charges less, does a better job, and would be happy for your business.
Posted on: 24 October 2008 by naim_nymph
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
If they followed maufacturer guidance they are protected.
It wasn't manufacturers guidance, it was the manufacturers 'Technical Instruction'. This is a corporate money making policy that uses the law for it's own dishonest devices. It does not matter which make of car you own either, most or perhaps all the margues have this system.
The Car-Dealerships are a ‘partner in crime’ so to speak, they’re only too happy to oblige with this dishonesty because of the excessive money made from doing it.
Out on the street this practise is also known as, "Getting Ripped Off"
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
Perhaps the manufacturer would say that replacing the entire pump with a complete (and warrantied) new item is better than piecemeal repair of individual components. They may be actually be right of course! Certainly they have an obvious interest in supplying replacement parts vs repairing an item.
Bruce
It was found that my pump was faultless, it did not need replacing or even removal from the vehicle. The electrical part that was faulty was 7 years old, it's a small electrical part (called an advance solenoid) that is screwed into the pump (rather like a spark plug screwed into an engine) but although it controls the timing of the pump it is not the pump itself.
This part is easily accessible and easy to change, takes half an hour.
I've had a friend say to me that her car was diagnosed with the need for a new pump @ £1000 cost, but instead she found a small independent garage that fixed it with a new pipe that cost her a tenner plus £50 labour so she only had to pay £60. She lives in a different Town and drives a different make of car to mine.
Perhaps i should sent my spare case fine to BBC watchdog ? : )
nymph
