Car returned from garage after repairs-lots faults,advice please.

[lambontheflag]

Hi all this is a long story but I will try to tell it briefly

 

The Car - FIAT CINQUECENTO was in a crash, went over a bridge & bottomed out & was towed to a local garage. said garage provided an estimate for repair which reads

 

.

Supply & fit manifold + gasket due to being snapped in half

Remove gearbox + fit sh gearbox due to mounting snapped on casing

Check driveshafts for damage

all subject to stripping down properly no warranty given on sh parts fitted at customers risk

£500

"

 

Was informed the car was ready for collection today

went and picked it up + PAID!

 

 

Reciept reads

.

stripped + removed gearbox. sent away for repair. refitted, replaced clutch kit with new.

repaired bottom gearbox mount

supplied+fitted ns driveshaft

welded exhaust from centre to flexi joint

..

 

Labour £48ph @ 5 hours = £240

Gearbox = £80

Exhaust weld - no guarantee given = £45

Driveshaft = £78

Clutch = £56

TOTAL = £495+VAT

 

Here is a list I made since I picked it up of things that are not right

 

HORN IS NOT FUNCTIONING

 

BRAKES HISSING - VACUUM ON SERVO NOT SEALING (HISSING LOUDER WHEN BRAKES APPLIED) PRESSURE NOT BUILDING IN THE BRAKING SYSTEM

 

GEARBOX LEAKING OIL,

 

OFFSIDE DRIVESHAFT LEAKING

 

EXHAUST HAS NOT BEEN WELDED ONLY COVERED IN PASTE

 

CLICKING + FREE PLAY IN STEERING

 

WARNING LIGHT IS ON

 

I was not warned about any of this at the time my gut feeling is that the gearbox has been welded in a bad position, the gearbox casing has not been replaced and with the gearbox not feeling any different i do not understand the nature of the alleged 'repair'.

 

I think the gearbox is too close to the steering rack and the brakes servo

 

I feel as though I have been had by some cowboys and the work that was carried out on the reciept is not the work I authorised from the estimate.

 

To be honest the car doesn't really feel at all safe to drive in this state and tomorrow I will take & post photos of the jobs' that have been done

In an ideal world, you go back with the issues and they have every opportunity to rectify them.[/QUOTE]

 

 

I appreciate the sentiment and I agree however I can't afford to pay any more money out just now, yet I consider this a matter of urgency it has taken them 4 weeks to come out with that lot

 

In an ideal world they would sort it quickly and at no extra cost to myself. What are the chances of that? Am I being unreasonable?

 

What should I do next?

Do you think I should try & get my money back?

 

I feel reluctant to take it back there considering they were happy to let me drive it away like that - these issues can hardly have wholly escaped their attention?

 

I don't trust/like the guys there, I go to speak with them, they say "he's out" but when I go round the back he's right there. at one point they even told me they weren't sending the gearbox but then that's what they claim to have done.

 

best case scenario is they are negligent and the way I feel right now and the way the car feels is that I am fully prepared to sue them / go to small claims court to recoup the costs of this the car seems in a worse state than when it went in ffs - they seem to have bent the floor to bodge the gearbox welding on :[ possibly ruining the car forever - i'm scared to put it on the jig. can floor be bent back?

 

Thanks & Kind Regards

[MARTIN3030]

Welcome to the site.

It is a criminal offence to supply a vehicle that is in a dangerous or unroadworthy condition.

Although it can be not easy to define unroadworthy,it does apply to faulty or dangerous braking,steering and suspension and chassis.Trading standards are usually keen to prosecute offenders.

First you need to be seen to have given the garage the chance to rectify the problems.

How do you know they wont do more damage ?

You can either seek an expert opinion,and get a report,or else put something in writing demanding that the garage fix the defects.

There is limited time that Trading standards are able to act,so you need to be quick.

Would do no harm to call into your local office and have a complaint logged and inform the garage you have done so.

Issuing a small claims action should not be too difficult,but again will rely on you being able to prove you have a case,this may be by way of expert witness,or RAC /AA inspection.

[sailor sam]

I actually think the title of this thread is miss-leading. Being an ex-Fiat service rep, I was drawn in because I thought it was a 'product' issue when clearly it is a repair issue. I'm assuming that the car was fine before this 'incident'.

 

Moving on to the subject itself, I would seriously advise having the car MOT'd BEFORE doing anything else. If it fails on anything related to the repair, present the repairer with the fail certificate and see what he has to say. Under the SOGA, he should have the opportunity to inspect and rectify. If he chooses not to do anything, your next step is to take the matter to trading standards sighting that the car was returned to you in an un-roadworthy condition. You may also have cause to refer the matter to VOSA also.

[lambontheflag]

I am sorry for the misleading thread title, the car was fine before the repair . I was in a bit of a tizz when I wrote the op & wasn't really sure what to call it.

Is it possible that a modmin could alter the title to something more appropriate?

 

I think that is good advice & I will try to get the car MOT today.

 

Where do I stand with repairs that haven't been carried out at all such as the brakes servo & the broken steering rack? ( which may be affected by the poor welding on the gearbox? )

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks SS I will re-title.

[sailor sam]

I am sorry for the misleading thread title, the car was fine before the repair . I was in a bit of a tizz when I wrote the op & wasn't really sure what to call it.

Is it possible that a modmin could alter the title to something more appropriate?

 

I think that is good advice & I will try to get the car MOT today.

 

Where do I stand with repairs that haven't been carried out at all such as the brakes servo & the broken steering rack? ( which may be affected by the poor welding on the gearbox? )

 

Lets see what the MOT comes up with. Armed with this, you will be able to present it to the repairer and get him to put things right.

[lambontheflag]

Motorvogue, a goof fiat dealer local to me have said they won't do an independent report as they are not going to be technically recognised as being 'independent' I am not sure what this means.

 

The car is booked into a vauxhall dealership who will assess & photo the shoddy jobs done but will they be recognised as being 'independent'?

 

I have been advised to have an MOT done on the car but my concern with this is invalidating my current MOT cert which will be valid for only another 2 months anyway.

 

Please advise what is my best course of action here, I think I am looking for an engineers report that will stand up in court.

 

Motorvogue FIAT are adamant the gearbox is in the wrong place, do you think I would just be able to get someone there to sign something saying this & then take it back to the garage & get them to rectify?

 

With thanks x

 

PS: trading standards have advised me that the garage have commited a criminal offence in giving me the car unroadworthy and they are obliged to sort the problems out with no further money from myself

[Boro]

By having an mot carried out early you will not invalidate your current mot whether it passes or fails, however should it fail you should rectify any faults or you would be driving an unroadworthy car, personally i wouldnt use the mot test as a way of inspecting the repairs as some of the repairs are unlikely to be mot testable items thus an mot test may not show items of concern, as to the garage rectifying faults from your accident that are still present at no cost to yourself i disagree with this, i would agree that an item they have repaired poorly should be sorted at no cost to you but with an item which they havent previously touched (perhaps unaware of a fault previously) they should not be reponsible for the cost of repair

[lambontheflag]

** sorry that should say 'Good Fiat dealer' Motorvogue Northampton have never been anything less than excellent in their dealings with me.

 

Please help me guys the car is really important to us

 

I feel at my wits end with this already and yet I feel this is going to be very long drawn out process

 

I have made myself sick at night lying awake wondering what this garage has done to my car

[lambontheflag]

Boro, thankyou for clarifying the mot situation

 

I have taken the car to at least 5 different garages who were at pains to point out to me that I am currently driving an unroadworthy vehicle

 

they all suggested I should get all my money back from the 'garage' as they have done such a bad job

 

the original quote does say they are going to strip down and check for damage and given that they have commited a criminal offence in returning the car to me in this unroadworthy state: relating to brakes/steering/chassis (possibly) they are liable for any damage outstanding as they should have found it when they checked,

 

that's my view of it currentlyvafter all I did pay them to assess the damage to the car.

 

am i right?

[Boro]

Im not disagreeing entirely, what im saying is whilst yes the items which they have repaired wrongly or poorly and faults they have created (servo vacuum leak etc) they need to rectify at their cost, faults not evident at the time of inspection for whatever reason and not a result of repairs carried out by them you would be responsible for, in your shoes i would get the repairs and your car inspected, a report written up by someone that knows what they are doing (doesnt have to be independent) so fiat dealer or fiat specialist then armed with this information you will know what needs to be done to put the car right

[sailor sam]

The idea of having the car MOT'd will prove the car is unroadworthy (or not as the case may be). If you re-read my post (#3) I suggest that if it fails the MOT on ANYTHING related to the repair, this will provide you with un-disputeable proof to use in court if necessary. An independant inspection is all very well but it will cost a lot more than an MOT. Maybe take the car to a Fiat dealer who does MOTs may be the answer. Then armed with the evidence, present it to the 'repairer' to see what he intends to do. If necessary, then take it to trading standards.

[Boro]

The trouble is sailor sam it may well not fail an mot, or the majority of the work anyway which was why i suggested having a proper inspection carried out, if it failed an mot on say just the vacuum leak and you returned to the garage that did the work they could well argue that the rest of it must be alright as it passed mot, hopefully you can see where im coming from

[Boro]

lambontheflag where are you located in the uk? if you prefer not to say on the open forum drop me a pm just wondering if we can find someone to have a look for you

[heliosuk]

An MOT does not prove anything and is not a document that can be relied on. So to suggest that this will prove a case is naive. The fact of the matter is were the repairs carried out correct and were they consistent with the damage. The original quote is to repair the damage they can see. Reasonably or not. You gave the go ahead to repair the damage for a price. From your description of the accident I would personally feel this to be three times the amount quoted however there are certain aspecs that the op has not given. For example, the manifold might well have been repaired but to get a gas tight seal you do indeed need at times to fill the blow holes with a paste filler.

 

The problem is that to me it seems the op has requested a get me back on the road request and from the descriptions I see there is no way they could have done this for the amount quoted..

A lot of this depends on what you told them to do and if you accepted the quote and perhaps said get it back on the road then frankly there is no case to answer.

 

Another easily defendable case from the repairers point of view.

 

In future, make it clear what the requirements are as at the moment I think the garage might well have been acting in your best interests.

[sailor sam]

Helio, are you seriously saying that it is acceptable for a garage to release a car back to it's owner in an un-roadworthy condition and it is 'acting in the OPs best interests? As for the MOT issue, if a car fails then surely it proves (as far as VOSA is concerned) that it is unroadworthy. This being the case, do you not think that a judge would take this as being an 'expert opinion?

 

The way I read this is that the garage provided the OP with an estimate of putting the car right. The OP accepted it and the repair appears to of been poor quality. In any event the fact remains that as Martin states in post #2, it is illegal to supply a car in an unroadworthy condition and that being the case (according to the OPs account), the garage have a case to answer.

 

To the OP; when the faults have been established, the garage should have the opportunity to rectify before taking any other action.

[lambontheflag]

Im not disagreeing entirely, what im saying is whilst yes the items which they have repaired wrongly or poorly and faults they have created (servo vacuum leak etc) they need to rectify at their cost, faults not evident at the time of inspection for whatever reason and not a result of repairs carried out by them you would be responsible for

 

The original quote is subject to 'stripping down to check if no further damage' in saying this i feel that at the time they assented to check the car thoroughly for damage - something which they have seemingly willfully failed to do

 

Not realising that the horn wasn't working for example is imo unacceptable

 

I did not drive the car from when they had it until I picked it up & when I did so I drove it straight to Motorvogue FIAT Northampton to have it checked over as it just felt so wrong.

 

At no point were the garage requested to just 'get it back on the road' I would pay any money for a thorough, proper & adequate repair.

 

Furthermore all the work that is paid for on the reciept is not the work that was authorised from the estimate

 

I am going to get an 'engineers report' on tuesday and the car will probably be returned to the garage on wednesday am,

 

should I supplement the engineers report with an MOT? What are peoples opinions?

 

 

PS we have spoken to barclaycard about disputing the payment who on the phone said wait till the 4th for the payment to go through

 

didnt sound right so went to the bank and asked them who said you should speak to barcalaycard not barclays because it's a different company; something smelling very very fishy in all this ...

 

best x x

[sailor sam]

I see an MOT as being usefull here. If presented top a judge, he is likely to acknowledge it as absolute proof of the 'failures' relating to the reapir. With an independant inspectors report, it could lead to further legal argument. Having both available would cover all angles so I would get the Fiat dealer to do both.

[heliosuk]

Helio, are you seriously saying that it is acceptable for a garage to release a car back to it's owner in an un-roadworthy condition and it is 'acting in the OPs best interests? As for the MOT issue, if a car fails then surely it proves (as far as VOSA is concerned) that it is unroadworthy. This being the case, do you not think that a judge would take this as being an 'expert opinion?

 

The way I read this is that the garage provided the OP with an estimate of putting the car right. The OP accepted it and the repair appears to of been poor quality. In any event the fact remains that as Martin states in post #2, it is illegal to supply a car in an unroadworthy condition and that being the case (according to the OPs account), the garage have a case to answer.

 

To the OP; when the faults have been established, the garage should have the opportunity to rectify before taking any other action.

 

Perhaps you should re read the original post. Here we have a car that has been subjected to in my opinion substantial damage. How they could repair this for the amount quoted is questionable for a start. Then we have to OP saying that the car was given back with a servo leak and other faults which may or may not have been apparent at the time. The OP says the garage created them, the garage could well say they were there before. What if an MOT shows the fron end OK but fails the back end on a worn top mount. Have the garage created this?

 

This sounds like a quick cash repair where the garage has tried to be helpful in keeping costs down and now the OP is gunning for them.

 

Sorry, but you know, or should, that with todays labour rates to repair a car for the amount quoted with the amount of damage quoted is living in cloud cukoo land. Further to cause this sort of damage there will be other things affected. Again something which might not be to do with the issue in hand.

 

In my extensive experience there is more to this than meets the eye so to speak and I take offence that you think or imply that I condone the release of vehicles that are in an unroadworthy condition after repair. What I am pointing out is that your favoured reliance on the MOT and SOGA is frequently fundamentaly flawed and that perhaps you should take a more considered opinion before offering advice that leads people into thinking they have a prima farce case.

[heliosuk]

I see an MOT as being usefull here. If presented top a judge, he is likely to acknowledge it as absolute proof of the 'failures' relating to the reapir. With an independant inspectors report, it could lead to further legal argument. Having both available would cover all angles so I would get the Fiat dealer to do both.

 

Rubbish!!! Too easily defended. You need to concentrate on the original quote and provisos given which writes off a lot of the claim should there be one. As far as I see it the only claim here is a failure to fit another manifold and another gearbox where it was clearly stated that they would not warrant it.

[sailor sam]

Sorry Helio but we will have to agree to dis-agree on this one.

 

There are two issues here, 1) if the repair was no financially vaible the garage should of advised or refused to do it. The fact that they have done it irresepctive of cost, means that the garage are saying it is repairable and thus when they hand it back to the OP are by default saying it is roadworthy. The issue is that if it wasn't roadworthy then an offence has been comitted by the garage.

2) The OP is saying that the repairs have been unsatisfactory and has been told by a Fiat garage that the car is in fact unroadworthy. My suggestion of putting it through an MOT with said Fiat garage will show why it is unroadworthy and will surely indicate that the failure(s) relate to the repair. At the same time I agree that a inspection report will also help the OPs case and I suggest it to be carried out by the Fiat dealer which the OP has referred to. My experiences with county court judges is that they are more likely to take note of an MOT failure sheet (being a recognised official govenment document) in deciding whether the car is unroadworthy or not.

[heliosuk]

I haven't got any problem with that Sam. The garage are under no obligation to advise as to the viability of the repair. For instance the cost of the parts could well right off the value of the car and I suspect this is the case here. I cannot see by repairing the bits they have leaves them open to other aspects that may or may not have existed before the car was presented.

 

With this post, as you frequently point out, you have to rely on the info given. Here we have a gearbox mounting broken and exhaust manifold broken. You know as well as I do that in the case of the gearbox repair there is something that does not tie up, i.e, a repair instead of replace. It's cheaper to replace!!! Then we have the manifold. If cast then no way can it be welded and included in the quote.

 

Neither of these two major items are relative to the MOT in real terms and frankly is ****ing in the wind with regards to pursuing anything against the repairer.

 

I cannot see where you are with this one Sam apart from a sailor losing the way a bit.

[sailor sam]

I haven't got any problem with that Sam. The garage are under no obligation to advise as to the viability of the repair. For instance the cost of the parts could well right off the value of the car and I suspect this is the case here. I cannot see by repairing the bits they have leaves them open to other aspects that may or may not have existed before the car was presented.

 

Maybe not, but if they release a car which is unroadworthy then surely that is an offence. The OP reports that the car was 'fine' prior to the accident.

 

With this post, as you frequently point out, you have to rely on the info given. Here we have a gearbox mounting broken and exhaust manifold broken. You know as well as I do that in the case of the gearbox repair there is something that does not tie up, i.e, a repair instead of replace. It's cheaper to replace!!! Then we have the manifold. If cast then no way can it be welded and included in the quote.

 

I actually agree with you here. I think it a tad surprising that the car was not deemed to be a write off. But clearly the garage must of thought it was repairable. By attempting to repair the mainfold rather than replace it surely suggests they don't know what they are doing. The same can be said about the gear box. But how do we know that the OP has enough mechanical knowledge to dispute the opinions of the garage?

 

Neither of these two major items are relative to the MOT in real terms and frankly is ****ing in the wind with regards to pursuing anything against the repairer.

 

No one said that they were relative to the MOT. The MOT will show whether the car was roadworthy or not after the repair which is the key factor. I have agreed that a seperate report from a Fiat specialist would also be usefull. The fact remains that the OP believes the repair to be sub standard in which case he should excersise his rights under the SOGA.

 

 

I cannot see where you are with this one Sam apart from a sailor losing the way a bit.

 

That may be your opinion but at the end of the day, I am seeing it from the OP's point of view as it is he who is asking for the advice. You appear on the otherhand to be seeing it from the garage's point of view. The latter being the supposed 'experts' and do have a certain responsibilty to ensure cars go back on to the road in a safe condition. By having an MOT test carried out, will prove whether they have in fact fulfilled their responsibilities which I believe to be important which is 'where I am on this one'.

[heliosuk]

As Boro correctly points out you cannot rely on the MOT as being gospel that a car is roadworthy and is something I harp on about frequently. In fact it's actually stated I believe on the certificate I believe. Nothing ties up here with the OP. For example even the drive shaft sides are different from the quote given. The OP is asking for advice as you say but I would argue that given the nature of the damage there is more to this than meets the eye. To require this sort of repair means the car was in some more serious prang that described which probably means a get back on the road request.

 

Far from taking the garages side what I am pointing out is that advising to take action which is what you tend to suggest might not be a wise step in this case. Too many ifs and buts for my liking.

[lambontheflag]

brb