Letter of complaint after Ford garage rips me off on MOT. Please Help

[Darfyddi]

Hi,

 

Sorry to start a new thread on this issue but I think my last thread had so many replies that no one is looking at it now. I desperately need advice on a letter I want to send, the summary of the situation follows:

 

I had a car fail an MOT at a garage and they told me that due to the new omputer MOT (instead of just paper) that I could no longer take my car back home as it had no mot and implied I would not be insured if I did. I needed to know as this cost me an extra £200 labour in work that I could have done myself.

 

the letter is:

To : effing ford garage

 

Ref: MOT #############

 

Dear Sirs,

 

I recently attended your garage on Someday the XXth of January 2013 for a pre-booked MOT on my car (AB12 CDE) – after waiting a couple of hours one of your staff told me that the car failed on 2 points – split CV boot and worn track rod end.

 

When I exclaimed "oh" and informed your staff that I would go home and get the work done then re-book he informed me that we were not allowed on the road without an MOT, I told him that I had over a week on my MOT but he then told me that I would not be insured if I took my car home for repairs and this was because the old paper system gave some discrepancy in timings but the new computer system meant that everything was instant and my current MOT became void because of it and we were not insured to drive home to arrange repairs at a suitable time.

 

Having since spoken to VOSA and Citizens Advice who are reporting this matter to Trading Standards on my behalf and I am now seeking to reclaim the monies you have defrauded me of.

 

1.) I believe that those items did need replacing however I do reserve some doubt as most garages will leave the car in the air if the customers are on the premises in order to show said customer the faulty parts – your staff told me that I could not be shown these parts as the car was already taken out the MOT workshop.

 

2.) Prior to this work being undertaken, I told your staff that I could and would do this work easily myself; for this reason I am pursuing a refund for the total costs of labour that you dishonestly charged me for.

 

The total cost of labour for this was £19#.## including VAT.

 

Yours,

 

################.

 

Please could anyone with who knows about these sort of letters please advice me on my use of words, grammer and how I should close it, or is it ok as it is. Many thanks for your time with this.

[heliosuk]

I've been watching this at a distance with much amusement (some site team members will know why).

 

We need to get one thing clear here, there is no such thing as MOT law. The only MOT law that applies is that a car at 3 years old has to have an MOT.

 

The actual test itself and the parts tested are down to the opinion of the tester based on "guide lines" but they are not law. However there is a proviso that where the condition of one or any of the tested parts at the time of test is of the opinion of the tester to be considered to be dangerous then they can red ticket the car which means it can only be removed from the premesis by trailer. The parts you describe as failing would indeed be a classic for this type of failure and you have not indicated as to exactly what the type of failure notice was issued against the car.

 

So in a nutshell, they can stop a car from going back on the road under it's own steam so to speak.

 

The letter you propose to send I would re-write as it is flagarently defamatory and unsubstantiated and you could find yourself on the end of a major claim against you especially if it found out it is on a public forum. The charges are consistent with main dealer charges for work of this kind.

 

As I understand it, today, an MOT test carried out today which fails overides a current MOT that might be valid but stand to be corrected on that.

 

The big thing about the letter is that if you send it expect a major reaction and battening down of the hatches by the dealer who will counter by suing for the reasons pointed out above.

 

Your call but you have no evidence that they have acted outside of the law and are making some rather damming and extremly risky statements.

[Darfyddi]

No failure notice issued to me - last time I had a car fail I received a fail notice and then I received the pass notice when it passed so I had both bits of paper.

 

Can any one help please?

 

A lot of negative there and it seems that you are telling me to give up and not bother. Cheers for your help.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Darfyddi

[oddjobbob]

What Helios said is basically right, but unless they actually gave yuo a 'this car is considered dangerous due to..' notice then the fact remains it is your car to remove tfrom their premises of you so wish.

 

The problem you have is that you let them repair it - agree, you knew no better at the time - and by letting them repair it I don't think there's a great deal you can do, it had faults, they fixed them, they charged you, you paid.

 

I don't think you'll get too far with this but by all means have a go. The wrost that can happen is that you get no where, the best is a refund of part of the labour charge.

 

Some MOT stations deliberately ask their testers to be extra strict on an MOT in order to get repair work when the workshop is quiet - sad but true I'm afraid, this may have been what happened here, who knows?

[Darfyddi]

Cheers for that. I have some extra evidence too as well as what you said. A lot of good advice from TS so it is looking good. Will just have to see how it goes. There are a lot of things missing from the garage so fingers crossed it will be ok.

[heliosuk]

Just don't send the letter accusing them of fraud and being dishonest as it could back fire. As I said it's your call

[Darfyddi]

Fair enough Helios - it is a bit harshly written.

[heliosuk]

Sorry Darfyddi if you feel that but but this forum is full of the sue grabbit and run brigade and it does not always work. Your case has merit and will probably succeed but you cannot accuse people of what is essentially criminal activity and publish it.

 

The issue is not necessarilly one for trading standards either despite what they say as it is an internal control problem in the dealership. Trading Standards can say what they want and are frequently wrong with cars unfortunately.

 

I need to go to and get my dinner now but hopefully I'll be back on the same time line next week when back in UK.

 

I strongly advise you rethink your strategy on this so it will not back fire on yourself.

[Darfyddi]

..

Edited February 8, 2013 by Darfyddi

[j66]

 

The actual test itself and the parts tested are down to the opinion of the tester based on "guide lines" but they are not law. However there is a proviso that where the condition of one or any of the tested parts at the time of test is of the opinion of the tester to be considered to be dangerous then they can red ticket the car which means it can only be removed from the premesis by trailer. The parts you describe as failing would indeed be a classic for this type of failure and you have not indicated as to exactly what the type of failure notice was issued against the car.

 

So in a nutshell, they can stop a car from going back on the road under it's own steam so to speak.

 

 

 

As I understand it, today, an MOT test carried out today which fails overides a current MOT that might be valid but stand to be corrected on that.

 

Speaking as a MOT tester, yes we can classify the defects as dangerous, not only defects on testable items but also defects noted on non testable items. We can only advise that a vehicle is not driven and of the risks/consequences involved in driving the vehicle, we cannot stop anyone driving a dangerous vehicle away, the worst that we could do is inform the police and they could take action if they stop the vehicle.

 

If you look at the wording on the MOT paperwork, there is no mention of a test failure, what is mentioned is 'Refusal of an MOT Test Certificate'. An MOT test certificate is valid until it expires, having refusals issued before certificate expiry does not invalidate the MOT certificate.

[oddjobbob]

Speaking as a MOT tester, yes we can classify the defects as dangerous, not only defects on testable items but also defects noted on non testable items. We can only advise that a vehicle is not driven and of the risks/consequences involved in driving the vehicle, we cannot stop anyone driving a dangerous vehicle away, the worst that we could do is inform the police and they could take action if they stop the vehicle.

 

If you look at the wording on the MOT paperwork, there is no mention of a test failure, what is mentioned is 'Refusal of an MOT Test Certificate'. An MOT test certificate is valid until it expires, having refusals issued before certificate expiry does not invalidate the MOT certificate.

 

And I stand corrected...thanks for that.

[Darfyddi]

Cheers for that advice - they definately pulled a fast one on me.