Am I legally entitled to an itemised invoice?

[patdavies]

Thats what I thought but according to Conniff's snip from Salse of Goods act 1979, it apparently states 'the trader does not have to provide a receipt'.

 

Both are correct. An invoice and a receipt are not the same thing.

[LancerQRL]

ok now for the geeky parts reply, its a potential warranty job so the garage should cover its backside and fit genuine parts, ie rover wiring loom. they have not decided to do this. unbelievably every single part on your car has a part number, i mean everything, even the screws that hold your number plates on will have part numbers. now you have had parts replaced on your car, your invoice should have a complete breakdown of the parts fitted. conniff the bcu could be a swan vesta type of unit- one programming and thats it, no good on any other car.

[heliosuk]

ok now for the geeky parts reply, its a potential warranty job so the garage should cover its backside and fit genuine parts, ie rover wiring loom. they have not decided to do this. unbelievably every single part on your car has a part number, i mean everything, even the screws that hold your number plates on will have part numbers. now you have had parts replaced on your car, your invoice should have a complete breakdown of the parts fitted. conniff the bcu could be a swan vesta type of unit- one programming and thats it, no good on any other car.

 

Not familiar with these swan vesta units lancer. What's the difference? If it was an SVU then would still need recoding with spare key which it didn't need so must be a BMW based unit. If SVU then would need spare key as well. I don't think they changed the loom but repaired it hence the additional non covered warranty cost and perhaps a rather wide description of the work. Easiest and questionable way to do it would have been to change the BCU loom which is intergral to the main loom and that's mega expensive and not covered. Hence my reasoning about the block connector repair.

 

What do you think?

[Conniff]

The thing is that after only 4 weeks, this shouldn't have been a warranty claim but a return to the garage for them to repair as an inherent fault.

[sailor sam]

Both are correct. An invoice and a receipt are not the same thing.

 

An invoice is what lists all the work/goods/services ect which relates to the transaction and becomes a receipt when marked 'paid in full'.

 

It is an invoice the OP needs in these circumstances and should detail all the parts and work carried out along with the cost breakdown and VAT.

[sailor sam]

The thing is that after only 4 weeks, this shouldn't have been a warranty claim but a return to the garage for them to repair as an inherent fault.

 

Sorry Conniff, I don't follow. The OP didn't say he had only had the car 4 weeks?

[upstream]

OK.

 

The Rover 75 was developed in conjunction with and perhaps by BMW. Now BMW has design specs which dictate where it is to be mounted, what it does etc so essentially is the same unit across the board only with different software loaded into the EPROM. But each of these units is coded to the car and keys as it leaves the line.

 

Now, in the early days of these being fitted, they were mounted usually in the plenum chamber (not a particularly wise move) or inside.alongside the A pillar and they suffered terrible problems with water ingress.

 

This is what I think may have happened. However they might well have changed the BCU but of course then found out the connector into it was corroded as well. But this connector can have some 96 pins into it.

 

So my bet as to what has happened is that they did in fact change the BCU and recovered the cost from the warranty as covered under the policy. Then the conector pins need changing. It's very possible the corrosion led to the electrician having to splice in an additional 96 wires to make the pin repair good. So we have the wire and pins plus the solder, heat shrink insulation and his time and I thinks it's very possible the bill is correct. On reflection, if I was to do the job then I don't think I'd be too far adrift in terms of parts and labour if I controlled my stock of connectors.

 

One way of proving it would be to ask Tesco what they paid out and what for.

 

What does anyone else think?

 

Hi there,

 

Tesco have categorically stated that they didn't pay for anything and the garage have stated that the BCU turned out not to be faulty so they hadn't changed it but were unable to return the replacement one that they had used as a swap over. As a result, they claim to have incurred a £200 cost which they say that they did not pass on to me.

 

If they did replace a connector - this isn't something that is excluded from the warranty so I would like to know this so that I can claim against the warranty.

 

Personally I believe that they have ripped me off and to avoid the risk of being caught out are deliberately refusing to tell me exactly what parts have been fitted as I would easily be able to engage the services of an independent garage to check - For example if they said that they replaced a connector and I had a mechanic inspect the car and it indicated that the original one was in place then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[heliosuk]

They might have changed the pins and connector and it would be difficult to prove they hadn't. If they had then they would more than likely had to splice in new wiring to each of the wires, quite a few of them. This might explain the multiple breaks. It does though form part of the wiring so whilst not being specifically mentioned as not covered it comes under wiring.

[scaniaman]

Can't speak for all debit cards but Visa debit card allows holder to claim "clawback" against unsatisfactory goods and services. Your local bank may not know this, or be obstructive. Well worth asking bank or contact debit card company direct to ascertain position with their particular card.