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
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
quote:Originally posted by naim_nymph:
Many Car-Dealerships have been ripping people off for so long now they wouldn't know what being honest is if it crept up behind them and bit 'em on the arse!
nymph
I can sense you are aggrieved
Cheers
Steve
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:quote:What I would (and should) have been told is,
nymph,
Sooner or later i'm afraid, you need to wake up to today's real world.
Mrs D's washing machine went on the blink a little while back.
Root cause? brushes on the motor had worn out.
Cost to fix? £10 for the brushes, lets say £15 for 30 minutes labour = £25 job done.
How do I know? I didn't charge her for the 30 minutes, or the previous hour trying to figure what was wrong, or the time taken to pop into reading to buy the spare parts, or the fact that her machine had the old-style brush housing that has to be changed (so that next time we can just replace the brushes! - joke)
If I had called the Boche experts, the cost would have been over £200. And they wouldn't have frigged about replacing brushes or brush housing, they'd have just swapped out the whole motor - and charged 30mins plus call-out time etc in all probability, they would have recommended replacing the machine!
We live in world of throw-away.
And not just in the motor industry.
I agree it isn't fair, but.......
cheers
Don
A very good example of why fix it yourself is best
Cheers
Steve
quote:Originally posted by naim_nymph:
The facts became known, their was no need to remove the pump for such a minor electrical component failure...
nymph
Nymph, whilst i sympathise with much of your claim, i think the application of hindsight in this way is clouding your judgement. The diagnostics told them there was a problem with the pump. They sent the pump for repair, admittedly contrary to the pump manufacturer's advice, but entirely consistent with the car manufacturers advice, which you'd expect them to follow, otherwise there'd be no benefit in taking the vehicle to a main dealer.
What followed was most unfortunate, and i agree with the key bases of your claim. I have the following query - if the pump sepcialist would only have charged £171 (from memory of an earlier post), why did they charge the main dealer £300? Did i miss something?
The fact that the issue turned out to be 'just' the solenoid doesn't suggest they should have known that at the start. They followed procedure. I agree with posts that suggest that main dealers just follow the rules and lack initiative and the ability to independently diagnose using their experience. I've experienced that also.
The final point i'd make is that with respect, it's slightly naive to assume that the main dealer will point you in the direction of the garages they subcontract work to. If this were the case, you'd be taking the car away for engine rebuilds, bodywork, re-spraying, windscreen replacement etc etc etc. This is common practice. If you have the time and expertise to diagnose all problems with your car yourself, research who's best placed to carry out repairs, and take the car or relevant part to the appropriate garage, then go ahead. I think you'd find it'd cost a fair amount in time. Generally, this is what you pay the main dealer premiums for. After all, you didn't know it was the pump, and if you did, you wouldn't necesarily have known where to take it.
Having said all of that, there are some obvious issues with the service you received. A court of law has agreed with you on this, and awarded you certain costs.
I'm truly sorry you've had a bad time, but to suggest that the judge is lazy or on the side of the car manufacturer is clearly biased due to your experience. The law has been applied. If you don't agree with it, then again, you're perfectly entitled to diagnose all future faults yourself, and send the car to the appropriate specialist. Good luck with that
Phil
quote:Originally posted by Phil Cork:
[What followed was most unfortunate, and i agree with the key bases of your claim. I have the following query - if the pump specialist would only have charged £171 (from memory of an earlier post), why did they charge the main dealer £300? Did i miss something?
Hello Phil, good question!
As i have pointed out before from Lucas based service information. It's easier for LSUK to diagnose and rectify fuel-pump faults if the pump is on the car 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"
However, when LSUK received my pump from the dealership, they checked it visually and very quickly found the solenoid to be suspect, apparently it clicks if faulty, a hands on procedure used by the mechanic, and this is easy stuff for them. Usually the pump is on the car when they fix these solenoids. It doesn't take very long to do. A very easy job.
However, they had been sent my pump for 'strip-down and overhaul', so they overhauled it by testing it on a test-rig for some time. This comes with additional labour and some overhead costs that would not have been applicable had the pump been on the car.
As far as LSUK were concerned, the advance solenoid is a control mechanism for the pump, it's not the pump itself. After fitting a new solenoid the pump tests met with manufacturers specification, so there was nothing wrong with it.
quote:Originally posted by Phil Cork:
The fact that the issue turned out to be 'just' the solenoid doesn't suggest they should have known that at the start. They followed procedure. I agree with posts that suggest that main dealers just follow the rules and lack initiative and the ability to independently diagnose using their experience. I've experienced that also.
The technical instruction from Toyota 'GB' was in place because Lucas pumps are so unusual in Toyota cars the dealership mechanics are not trained to service them, (they are trained to service and repair bosche etc so they may not be completely clueless about pumps).... but here lies their problem, they are not trained to set up the pump timing on a Lucas pump/Peugeot engine. (My engine is a derivative Peugeot engine used in a Toyota).
As soon as they followed procedure with that 'technical instruction' to remove a Lucas pump they are doomed to failure because they can't set up the pump timing on refit.
They had 2 goes at it, the second go lasted over 3 weeks and it was still wrong, this resulted in them BSing me about it being okay, but it only led to a break down and recovery vehicle to LSUK who i had to pay an additional £300 to diagnose and rectify the engine and pump timing that the Toyota dealership cocked up.
quote:Originally posted by Phil Cork:
The final point i'd make is that with respect, it's slightly naive to assume that the main dealer will point you in the direction of the garages they subcontract work to. Phil
If they ever get me as a customer again, i bet they'll be only too glad to refer me elsewhere!
nymph