Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Ripped off by Garage - Help ** But a happy ending **


repmobile
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3225 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I'll be the first to say it, my younger sister is very 'blonde' when it comes to cars.

 

The circumstances are, she owns a new shaped 2005 Ford Focus 2.0 petrol (her pride and joy). Previously she had always taken it to the local Ford dealer near where she lives in North London for servicing etc.

 

However the car now being four years old with just upon 70k miles on Friday she took it to a garage that advertises in her local free paper and which someone had 'reccomended' to her for a service and MOT. She being she told the garage 'to do what was needed'.

 

Anyhow the upshot is when she collected the car, she was met with a bill for over £800 which she paid (cheque).

 

The bill states the garage has done various things on top of the service and MOT and she has been charged for the following parts, front discs and pads, rear brake shoes, front cv joint boot, front n/s wiper, cambelt kit and tensioner, water pump, auxillary belt.

 

Now, I am pretty sure (as she now is) that she has been ripped off by the garage. For starters the car has rear disc brakes (they charged her for rear brake shoes). But more worryingly is the 'Cambel kit and tensioner' - the engine being a petrol Duratec 2.0 is actually chain driven and doesn't have a cambelt (she didn't know this until she spoke to me - hence my going through the bill with a toothcomb). I cannot say the car didn't need the other parts allegedly fitted, but I am now very suspicious.

 

I think they have blatently ripped her off thinking she is a dizzy blonde (which, sad to say, she is).

 

Now, what would be the best course of action for her?. Should she stop the cheque?. Also should she (or me) challenge the garage first or speak straight to Trading Standards on Monday?

 

I am worried not just that she has been taken for a ride by these crooks, but who else might they have tried this on.

 

Any assistance is very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Being a 'dizzy blonde' means taking the mickey out of not taking advantage of.

 

Don't do anything by phone or personal contact conversation unless you are recording the call or the face to face conversation. Only use recorded deliver mail and keep copies of everything you send and receive.

 

In the first contact I would just question the cam belt / drums and the charges for the work on them. What you do will depend on the answer you receive.

 

She shouldn't stop the cheque as commercial banking costs money and if things shouldn't be as they seem on the bill, she will be charged fees passed on to the garage by the bank.

 

To be absolutely certain, even though this car is supposed to have rear disc and a cam chain, visually inspect it for comfirmation that her car is actually as it should be.

 

Any further help you require, come back here and ask whatever you want, you will be replied to and guided as required.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided it's the "new shaped Focus" i.e. the middle one of the mark 1, 2 and latest 3 then it will have a Duratec engine which is indeed a twin cam chain driven engine. However it could also be a personal import with a Zetec engine so be carefull before gunning for the garage. On the balance of probabilities, given the sales figures it will be a domestic market one, but there is always the chance it's from somewhere else.

 

So we'll deal with each individual problem.

 

Irrespective of whether your sister gave permission to do whatever is necessary, the garage should have asked permission to replace. There are grey areas here as often the schedules say check but the amount of dismantling involved now means it's easier and cheaper to carry on.

 

The brake discs at this mileage were probably on the way out so to replace seems not unreasonable. The rear shoes as well. You do need to check if it has discs or shoes but again be carefull, some "editions" had these added as no cost features ( which don't cost them anything anyway). Consequently garage computer systems won't always give a labour time code so the person making up the bill will plump for the nearest code. It's the way the systems work.

 

If we have a case where a Zetec engine is fitted then yes, they were correct in doing what they did and have done a favour by doing the water pump at the same time.

 

The CV boot and wiper blade are MOT requirements so no contest there.

 

Personnally, I'd take the bill in to them and from what you have gleaned challenge it first. If it is Zetec then fine, if not ask for a refund, if it is rear disc and not drum, ask for evidence and cost differential, front discs and pads will be obvious.

 

If not then do what Conniff suggests, everything by writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all.

 

I have just spoken to the garage on the phone. Apparantly 'the boss' who deals with things is not there at the moment (I don't believe that for one minute to be honest). He will apparantly ring me back later.

 

Just to clarify, it is a 2005 Mk2 Focus, 2.0 Zetec trim level with a Duratec petrol engine. It came brand new from a main dealer in London. I have a similar 2006 model myself (Focus 2.0 Titanium trim) petrol so having in the past compared both cars together side by side , I know they have the exactly the same engine and both have rear discs.

 

I will await the bosses call with interest.

 

Thanks again,. i will keep you updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at 8.30pm last night the garage proprietor did ring me.

 

At first he said they had done all the work on the bill. When he realised I knew what I was talking about re the 2.0 Duratec engine being chain driven and the car having rear discs his story changed saying they must have got my sisters bill muddled up with another customers bill as apparantly they had two Ford Focuses (Foci?) in for service and MOT that day (albeit my sisters name and car registration number is on the bill). I asked him if he could give my sister the other parts that had been taken off the car during the service for us to examine but he said they had been disposed of already.

 

He then went on to say due to Data Proitection he couldn't speak further to me but wanted to speak directly with my sister (alllegedly to sort it out) but although he has my sisters mobile number he hasn't contacted her.

 

What I would like to know is, is this alleged mistake with the billing likely? Could they have given the wrong bills to two customers? Also is he hiding behind Data Protection by not speaking to me further?. Also wWhat would be suitable recompense for my sister?

 

To be honest, I don't believe a word of what he said re mixing the two customers bills up but I cannot prove it and he knows that. To me it smells that they tired to rip off my sister.

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this mystery Focus owner must have had a very reduced bill, lucky them.

 

"Is the mistake with the billing likely?"

It's feasable, but not very likely and in the absence of any proof, will have to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't absolve them and give them the right to just make an apology.

You will have to work out what the overpayment amount is and add to that what you want as compensation.

 

As they have already erred, I wouldn't take the offer of a free next service or free anything from them should they say they will give that.

Personally I would demand the full amount paid for the service be refunded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it smells all the way up here to Scotland. Two points to consider, 1.Ask to see fitters job card, this should have car Reg. number on it. 2. If you think that this is going to drag on for a while/get really nasty, then get your sister to write a letter(to whom it may concern) stating that you have her authority to conduct business on her behalf. That gets round Data Protection. Best of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does smell like the stuff they put on the fields round here however lets not over-react. On the balance of probabilities, it is a rip off but as both Conniff and I point out it is feasible mistakes have been made and as I have said, the garages systems might not be fully up to this though admittadly is highly unlikely.

 

The thing is that they did come back to you so I would go and get the differences refunded (with your sister) and draw a line under it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Many thanks for the replies.

 

I have typed up a letter re me acting for my sister which she has now signed (it meant a 100 mile round trip for me to get her to sign it) and which I will post off by Royal Mail Special Delivery today (I thought doing it by Special Delivery will mean they cannot say they haven't received it).

 

I have also told my sister to book her car into the local Ford main dealer as she says the brakes don't feel as good as they did before the service (should also help prove whether or not they actually did change the pads/discs etc which they billed her for - when I met her yesterday it was dark so I couldn't tell). I also asked her to ask the main dealer if they could say whether the cv boot, air filter, oil etc was new as well.

 

So far the garage proprietor in question has not rung my sister and refuses to speak with me. Now, in my view, if they had made an honest mistake I feel sure they would have rang my sister to offer a refund etc but so far she has not received any calls (I know they have her mobile number as it is on the garage bill).

 

Anyway, I will keep you posted and many thanks for all the help so far.

Edited by repmobile
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

A further update.

 

I know the letter I sent to the garage by Special Delivery was signed for yesterday according to the Royal Mail website. However the garage owner has still not rang either me or my sister to make any ''offer.'

 

Anyway, her car was taken to the Ford main dealer this morning (I went there with my sister) to get the brakes looked at. The Ford dealer has stated that although there are new pads fitted to the front, the discs are in no way new ones only fitted a week ago (and done less than 65 miles). So despite being charged for front discs and pads, only the pads were changed. He also commented that the pads fitted were not Ford (Motorcraft) ones and looked very cheap. The dealer kindly let me take some photos of the discs and pads with my digital camera.

 

Also the rear brakes had not been touched by the original garage at all. In fact one back alloy wheel was stuck to the hub and only came off with some fairly heavy hits with a mallet,which the dealer said could not have happened if the wheel had only been taken off a week ago. The rear pads were very worn and the dealer has now fitted new rear Ford pads. He also commented that as part of the service schedule, Ford would have changed the Brake Fluid at this service which appeared not to have been done.

 

He also looked at the CV joint boots and said in his opinion neither was new due to the build up of dirt on them (again photographed).

 

He did agree that the oil and oil filter looked new, however it was an unbranded filter not a Ford one nor any make I have heard of (Fram, QHPartco etc). . However on the dipstick, the oil level just read on the minimum, not the maximum which I (and he) would have expected. He did say though he hoped the garage had used 5W-30 oil (it didn't state which oil had been used on the bill), so we are taking it back to Ford Rapid fit tomorrow for new 5W-30 Ford specification oil and a Ford filter to be fitted just to be on the safe side.

 

The Ford chap also said that the wrong air filter has been fitted and it had been squashed into its holder (again photographed).

 

He also confirmed to both me and my sister that the car indeed had a chain driven engine and no cambelts were fitted.

 

He was very helpful but did say if we wanted him to investigate things further he would have to charge us, particularly if we wanted the computer hooking up, but we thanked him for his help in doing what he had which was over and above what we has asked him to do anyway, also for letting me photgraph the various things (well done to Dagenham Ford!).

 

So, thinking about it I suppose the original garage proprietor will say that not only was it the cambelt bit muddled on the bill but probably it was the whole bill that had been mixed up with the other Focus (yeah I so believe him - not).

 

I intend to write to him again tomorrow, and enclose prints of the photgraphs and also a copy of the bill from Dagenham Ford. I think only a complete refund would be aceptable together with an apology. Is this suitable recompense?

 

Also, would Trading Standards be interested in this rather sad saga?

 

Many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Just come across your thread. VERY IFFY!

 

Write to them saying you expect a refund to reflect the work which was'nt done and list the items in question. Your letter should be sent again by recorded delivery and I would put in that you will expect a response within 14 days to avoid any further action.

 

Also it would'nt hurt to refer this to trading standards to see what they have to say. You never know, this garage may be known to them!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good stuff and you have done exactly what should have been. On the basis of what you have discovered, without doubt, this needs reporting to trading standards, if only to protect others.

 

Personally I would also go to the police as this is an obvious case of fraud. In fact I would go as far as to say that this deception is so serious that it borders on criminal intent to defraud.

 

Well done for getting the pics etc and even more well done to Dagenham Motors.

 

Perhaps now is the time to name and shame the repairer concerned. Always use the word alleged though!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any response to the photos and letter yet?

 

I think you should also ask for a 'full' refund of the service done as fair compensation for the trouble they have put you through after let alone the work charged for but not done.

 

we thanked him for his help in doing what he had which was over and above what we has asked him to do anyway,

 

I hope you slipped him the price of a pint :)

 

I might also be a good idea to drop the boss at Dagenham Ford a line with a bit of praise for this mechanic. Customers are very swift in dropping lines with complaints over the silliest of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all again,

 

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was away with work all today and could only confirm tonight that the letter and photos which had been sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery had been signed for which they had been at 1120hrs today.

 

Anyway, my sister had a call this afternoon from the garage proprietor.

 

Anyway, to cut a long story short, my sister mentioned aboiut the Ford garage not being able to get one of the back wheels off, to which the response was apparantly (allegedly) that they couldn't get it off either that was why the rear brake pads were not changed and it was a mistake to charge her for them (funny how previously it was a mixed up bill with another Focus in the garage on the same day that had caused the problem!). Anyway, he offered to refund my sister £500.00. She for once not being blonde said not likely.The offer was raised to £600.00 and again my sister declined and said she wanted a full refund.

 

She then (allegedly) got a sob story about hard times in the garage trade and he was doing her a favour by offering to refund so much despite all the work his garage did on her car (excuse me whilst I vomit!!).

 

Anyway, she told the garage proprietor that as per the letter I had sent to him, she wanted a full refund wiithin 10 working days or else Trading Standards would be asked to deal. The call then terminated.

 

So, its waiting game now to see if a cheque or whatever arrives.

 

Conniff, re the chap at the Ford garage, he refused point blank a 'gratuity' on the day however I think he will be personally looking after my sisters car in the future as he and my sister seemed to hit things off together really well and he is a really nice bloke - I know they have texted each other a few times and I think they are having drinkies later this week. Whats that saying about an ill wind etc etc!!

 

Anyway, I'll keep you posted (on the car front)!!

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for her rep!

 

I totally agree with Conniff about writing to the Directors of Dagenham Motors about the service you received. From my time down that neck of the woods and knowing some of the lads who worked for the company they were always under pressure to make more money and customer service came second. They hated it and many left. The gratuity rejection also shows very high integrity.

 

Yes, the industry is having a tough time but you don't get over it by blatently ripping people off and falsifying invoices for work not done!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like it's coming on well.

 

Conniff, re the chap at the Ford garage, he refused point blank a 'gratuity' on the day however I think he will be personally looking after my sisters car in the future as he and my sister seemed to hit things off together really well and he is a really nice bloke - I know they have texted each other a few times and I think they are having drinkies later this week. Whats that saying about an ill wind etc etc!!

 

Anyway, I'll keep you posted (on the car front)!!

 

Not just on the car, I like a good wedding. mgbride.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you see if the items where failed on the MOT? (Bar cambelt etc..) If they where failed and then replaced, you should be able to get hold of a printout of the brake test from the RBT, which would show whether there was any reason at all to touch the rear brakes.

 

You can get the MOT history on the VOSA website with the logbook/certificate number, which will detail if the items where found to be at fault during the test - garages can now provisionally pass a car if they going to carry out the work within a certain time frame, but again if this option is used, it must be duly logged.

 

Regards,

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. true benham, but the issue here is worked charged for that wasn't carried out and for parts that physically didn't exist on the car, or for that necessarily authorised.

 

The fact is that what this garage has done is so outrageous, frankly it beggars belief.

 

Read the thread and you'll see.

 

This is the type of operation that needs stopping overnight. I have tried to think of an explanation to it but frankly from the information provided I cannot now think of any justification.

 

What we need to be doing is telling this garage to stop reading the daily stars planetry predictions and to get into the real world where technical knowhow and expertise along with customer service and professionalism actually mean something.

 

It's an appalling case of trying to rip someone off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Just an update - well no update really as nothing has been heard from the garage proprietor.

 

I have sent a letter of praise to the CEO of Ford Retail (who own Dagenham Ford) copied to the Principle of the Branch concerned. My sister getting on well with him apart, it was very good of the technician in question to do what he did. I know big dealer chains do get some stick at times but they have been excellent.

 

Anyway I will update further when I have more to report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister getting on well with him apart

 

This is what you should be concentrating on now, not the recovery, that's secondary, just think, a whole life of free servicing for your car, worth much more than you were ripped off. :)

 

Sorry, just whileing away the time waiting for them to reply

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what you should be concentrating on now, not the recovery, that's secondary, just think, a whole life of free servicing for your car, worth much more than you were ripped off. :)

 

Sorry, just whileing away the time waiting for them to reply

 

Perhaps it's a newly dreamt up marketing ploy Conniff :lol:

 

I think we should apply!

 

Great though that a garage gets the praise it deserves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I can assure you this is no marketing ploy.

 

Whilst i may praise one person at Dagenham Motors, my view of their sister company 'up North' ie Polar Ford is definately not printable on a forum and is only beaten by the garage that this thread refers to.

 

Anyway, back on track, still nothing heard from the garage proprietor. He has had the letter for a few days now, so I don't know if he is making us wait on purpose or is just going to completely ignore it.

 

Just in case we end up there, would this come under the small claims court juristiction?

 

Many thanks

Edited by repmobile
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading this thread with huge interest and have been wondering what would happen if your sister's car had been involved in an accident?

 

Let's hope it never happens, but given the quality of work allegedly carried out and the questionable origin of the parts that were fitted, they would been directly in the line of fire if "defective vehicle" appeared on the accident report.

 

I agree with some of the commentators on here, one small error is human, two shows a sloppy approach but this is outright fraud. Charging for work not carried out, overcharging for work that was done and lying about brakes etc - how many more indicators are required here? These guys are total cowboys and their actions are beginning to make the main dealer look like a really good option.

 

Glad your sister now has a technician she's happy with but don't give up here, go for their jugular and don't forget to add in a sum for hassle and inconvenience too!

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...