I don't know if its a legal requirement, but if the garage is charging full price for the part then adding the surcharge to it as if the surcharge part hasn't been or isn't going to be returned that is naughty! The surcharge should be qualified by the repairer ie if the part is not broken or damaged and is resuseable core material they should credit the surcharge element prior to invoicing you, and take on the responsibility of waiting for reimbursement themselves, this also serves as incentive to actually return the part rather than bin it, or allow mischeivous technicians to collect and sell, or the garage themselves of course. A customer should never have to claim it. Most factor supplied parts can still be credited the surcharges, and still discounted to the customers. It won't have to show on the invoice as a credit necessarily, but the price charged should obviously not appear higher than the single part retail value (indicating the surcharge was added to the part cost) only my2p

they wouldn't know the head is cracked. You have to deal with the obvious faults first, so coolant loss, then overheating poss due to head gasket, which is sometimes all you can change, then run the car again after that, including having checked the head is straight, then if still overheating look further. If they send the head away, some places can crack test it, but they can't heat it to the full running temp, and on a freelander it is alloy, which expands significantly when running. So it could be just unfortunate. I wouldn't have expected them to look at the gearbox first, and I would expect them to be wary of the K series engine being known to suffer significant consequential problems as a result of overheating. They could be discovering the failed coolant pipe wasn't the causal part, but a consequence. The cause on that car could well be the head gasket, and other damage yet to be confirmed could well be considerable, so I'd advise remaining open minded They should consider talking to you about engine change at that mileage with this kind of problem, when weighing up the cost options and direction of repairs just my 2p

the garage won't have necessarily recorded the tread depths, maybe just making sure they met the 1.6mm minimum They may not have wheel alignment equipment, so not necessarily automatically set up the tracking Usually the track rod ends would be counted off and on the threads as a basic guide, preventing such a massive error, supported by the lock nuts which would be pretty much in their original position, The previously concealed threads may be exposed on poorly reassembled jobs It would have driven terribly with massively light steering and a very vague feel with poor traction immediately The garage would want to see the claimed error, and the original tyre condition If you do much more, and the error is concealed by work or adjustment you have carried out, they may not offer much in the way of customer service Please consider, if the track rod ends were shot at the point of mot, they must have been bad, as mot's are checking minimum standards, and wear will already have been apparent on the tyres as a result of this, posibly over a fairly long period. You say the new tyres were worn out, and I would question that the tyre fitter could have detected the worn joints possibly earlier (only possibly) You may only receive some goodwill gesture, but let them see as much as possible, only my2p

Tradex can be for private individuals selling at home as part time, not just cars, so may not apply that he is a trader regarding this car, although likely, he could trade in mopeds, or horseboxes. He would normally have to tell them which vehicles are for sale or that are for personal use, and the percentage of his business any type represents, and don't know how you'd find out. It may not matter, some may regard him a trader because he has it He doesn't have to disclose a category D loss to my knowledge as it is usually minor damage that an insurer chooses not to repair, or similar. He does for 'C' though. Having said that the values for 'D' are regarded 10-20% less depending on vehicle and a main dealer wouldn't usually touch them, so harder to sell The mileage is an issue, and you should discuss it with him and request a full refund if certain it must have been altered in his ownership, and that it hasn't a bizarre malfunction. Also be sure he hasn't said it had a new cluster or similar, as I understand it is only an offence to pass off a vehicle as having covered less then actual milage, not to change it. Changing mileage for certain reasons is legitimate, but not for increasing a cars value. If it is deliberate and now caught out, he may be quick to own up, and will possibly play ball and refund you. It's an imprisonable offence I think

is there recourse from the place that did the head gasket? was the engine already on its way and should it have been spotted, so you wouldn't have spent that money on a repair, but an engine at that point, and wouln't be under pressure now...?

I wonder if the OP had sought a claim directly using Accident Exchange, or other company including solicitors, not the other party insurer, whether they would have provided better than the minimum RTA cover only. Was he advised he had an option? The at fault insurer would have been paying the excesses then wouldn't they, or would the hire agreement in those circumstances include the common damage waiver, or damage waiver insurance.... why contact the other side insurance anyway without knowing the options available, or did they approach the OP? The reply seems decent if not a little innapropriately suggestive maybe I think theres more to it

well, she won't get away with it, as a claim of 50/50 is still a claim, and if her car isn't damaged, it is her insurance paying half of you repairs/loss no? You could have tried a non fault company, but on private ground difficult. If you try court now I think you're wasting money personally, just if there's a next time, don't be so quick to claim immediately, check the no win no fee solicitors first. I know a forensic engineer who would identify the damage you describe as not possibly caused by your manouvre, as in fron of the rear wheel arch to get a dent for example, depending on scratch evidence and shapes etc could explain your car would have to have been going sideways! anyway only my2p, she has a claim against her, so do you, but you get another car hopefully. (you do know you can ask to keep your car don't you, worth doing sometimes and repairing later if minor. Often the case with older cars, written off because the insurance can't be bothered, and you could be paid several hundred still, with sometimes only token amount deducted to buy your car back)

Sounds like a mess really I'm surprised the agreement is with Audi, i'd have thought it Accident Exchange, as they were said to be the handlers of the claim from the inception even though you contacted Audi, who acted initially, to assist with a call out from a rep from somewhere Accident Exchange pay referral fees to garages, and I wonder if Audi could be collecting somewhere for the 17% of their customers who apparently may have non fault accidents The bodyshop weren't necessarily acting for Audi, but Accident Exchange. It is likely they who should have correctly estimated the vehicle, and submitted initial and supplementary estimates to Accident Exchange appointed assessors. Accident Exchange used to say they authorised and paid for all work in the case of non fault accidents, so they would have appointed the engineer, who could have been called out again in your case. Audi are possibly just trying to enhance their service by using Accident Exchange, and are responsible I think for sub contract work. So if they use that bodyshop they are responsible I believe, if Accident Exchange use that bodyshop, then I would think they are. Audi will probably have not authorised any repairs at all or even estimated the car. Was the guy that came out an Audi garage employee? Initial estimates are usually subject to stripping and e&oe so you should be able to add this repair easily to the claimed work Accident Exchange handle all of the claim not Audi in the slightest This is worse when garages with no bodyshop of their own team up with a independent shop, then gain approval for them to work on their brand, usually amongst others, and get involved in the repairs this way, syaing they have an approved bodyshop, when they don't 'have' one, they 'use' one. The trouble is someone has to have the clout to get things put right. Yes Audi may have had the chance to inspect the car, but I would say it wasn't for them to do unless asked to. It doesn't seem the process was made that clear aside from the mention of Accident Exchange by the guy that came out to you Balgores Motors would have been instructed by the non fault claim company only, and are responsible in my own opinion for the estimated work, and Accident Exchange ultimately for their subcontactor workmanship and the claim process itself. The person to put it right I would expect to be at the claims company, to instruct the engineer to re examine the vehicle at Balgores, and handle any subsequent work as a supplementary claim. In your case the repair has been done perhaps, and they could have retained the parts to pursue this afterwards, which an assessor could still examine from either party if required. Shame you're getting such a runaround, only my2p but it's the path i'd have followed, even if some say incorrectly perhaps If it happens again, i'd leave the dealer and manufacturer out of it, definately if the dealer hasn't it's own in house paintshop, they are extremely quick to turn their back on you, and definately will on the car now it's had any sort of repair, regarding possible future corrosion claims and paint etc in the area of repair. Good luck, sounds like you are on your way

He's trying it on, because he already got you to refund some, and I wouldn't have paid for that safety check either, as if i was selling, i would be selling a van that has been modified Its an old vehicle sold as seen privately, and disclosed modified, I don't think you be held accountable for anything unless you knowingly sold it in a dangerous (unroadworthy) condition at the time that the buyer can prove beyond doubt only my2p

You do have to send the docs away, but the salvage can be retained for a proportionate fee if agreed by the insurance company A ctegory 'B' write off can only be sold on for spares, and normally on a motorcycle, evidence of destruction may be required by the insurance company, usually the headstock being removed or similar. The seller I would think is could be required to source an alternative frame maybe, or refund the vehicle. Interesting is that you say there is no damage marker at the DVLA, is there none on the mot certificate either? (probably not) It may be that you can contact the hpi people that hold this write off data, as if the DVLA have no record, it may be legitimate, and perhaps incorectly marked. For example a mistyped vin of another bike, now matching yours. Ultimately you are responsible for hpi checking any vehicle you wish to purchase, but it is illegal I think to sell a category C or B vehicle on without disclosure. A category D I undertstand you can. A category C bike can go straight back on the road it seems, although it is supposed to really have a check to confirm correctly repaired before DVLA release the V5 with the above mentioned marker, but this only seems o be done with cars. A category B cannot be rebuilt as far as I know, these sometimes become track bikes, or a source of parts. I think it may be possible with a new frame and subsequent inspection but have never done it, only C's and D's. It could even be that an owner registered an insurance claim and then withdrew it, after an engineers report, which should mean the report is discarded. I wouldn't lose all hope just yet, try and get evidence of your insurance company claims that they are discussing the correct details if you haven't already done so. I guess you checked the displayed vin on the bike not just the reg number in case of document mismatch?

The original post prompted a response that the driver may have been breaking the law using the car, possibly meaning whilst a transfer was in progress I'm certain this is true as the form if I recall, states a vehicle must not be used on the road during transfer, and in his case it seems it was. That must have also been a responsibility of the seller, especially as the driver hadn't completed the forms so would potentially be unaware of this condition Definately report them for what it's worth, this could have so easily have been a police matter at your expense only my2p

Hi, It is possibly just down to the fact at the time you claimed initially through your insurer, who now has to recover it all for you, which they most likely will, but some have knock for knock agreements and an amount will remain paid by your side. If you went directly to a non fault specialist or solicitor, no claim would be made by you to your insurance company, and your claim firm would guarantee this once accepted, so strictly you could maintain a claim free record, even though you disclose the event. It isn't easy to get the insurers to accept this, as they seem to expect they will suffer outlay, even the initial ambulance bill etc. But if there is no claim then there is no claim, so you don't have to answer the questions regarding settlement that get asked these days, as it doesn't apply. I have just gone throught this, and they had to accept it. They have no grounds to charge me more due to a past incident/private claim only my2p