Kwik Fit and damage

[KPI]

Trading standard ref. 11256220

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Following my recent experience in your MOT test station in Bristol Patchway, please find chronological details of events:

 

1/ Booked and paid MOT service online on 16.05.13 via Kwik-Fit.com

2/ Visited selected Kwik Fit centre at 15:30pm on Monday 20th May 2013

3/ Refusal of MOT certificate - 5 points enlisted in reasons of refusal.

4/ Staff at Kwik-Fit insisted to leave the vehicle for repair. I declined due to the fact the vehicle was serviced 6 weeks before with substantial work carried out (see point 6)

5/ Visited Chandler Motor Company following day i.e. 21st of May at 09.20

6/ Chandler Motor Company was carried work on the vehicle 6 weeks ago (receipt for £1.155,66 dated 05/04/2013), amongst the other changing both wiper blades (one of the reason of Kwik-Fit MOT refusal: ‘nearside windscreen wiper does not clear the windscreen’) and supplying and fitting new inner steering joints and link rods (Kwik-Fit MOT refusal: ‘steering rack gaiters insecure’).

7/ Mr X upon examination of the vehicle stated that the steering rack gaiters were deliberately tampered with sharp object (screwdriver) with visible tracks of manual intervention. He told me, it was a criminal damage and therefore Mr X phoned Kwik Fit head office and also VOSA area manager to establish best course of action.

8/ I have reported this case to VOSA, Trading Standard (ref. 11****0) and also the Police

9/ At 13.40 Kwik Fit area manager Mr Z (his mobile number 077****554) called my on my mobile and offered inspection of the vehicle by one of Kwik-Fit technician (named Y) from Gloucester’s branch. I have agreed and inspection was subsequently carried our in the same Kwik-Fit branch (test Station V106817) at 14.30.

10/ I felt unease upon arrival as the same technician (Mr O) who performed the original test day before was present and if fact he drove my car onto the ramp. I insisted that I do not want his involvement at any stage of examination as I had reasonable belief that he had vandalized my car day before.

11/ Y did not find any signs of tampering with steering rack gaiters and as such denied any wrongdoing by his Company. He had suggested putting some plastic clasps to secure the gaiters.

12/ Furthermore Y could not explain why the windscreen wiper was mentioned as one of the reason for refusal. He only stated, that technician who performed the duties were employed by Kwik-Fit 3 months ago, somehow suggesting that he might overlook this point.

13/ I found both of his explanation very dubious and for that reason I decided to seek an independent advise

 

14/ I have submitted VT17 form to VOSA on 22nd May. No response received until 29th of May, when I phoned VOSA to check the progress of the case. VOSA representative has suggested taking the action through Trading Standard procedure in first place.

 

15/ Vehicle brought back to Chandler Motor for repair and MOT. Total cost £121,40 (receipt attached)

 

16/ I found striking the fact of inconsistencies between two MOTs’ carried out in two different stations. This issue has been reported to VOSA for further investigation.

 

Subject to provisions referring to fail to provide adequate level of service as stated in Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and furthermore Criminal Damage Act 1971 I therefore demand from Kwik-Fit to refund £187,40 which includes the money I paid to carry initial MOT test, the subsequent costs incurred to repair parts maliciously damaged by your technician and the cost of public transport which I incurred being unable to drive the car between 22nd and 31st of May for 9 days.

Edited June 1, 2013 by ims21

[Conniff]

If this is under investigation by official bodies, you would be wise to wait before submitting a claim. No doubt the company will refuse any payment until they see the report.

You will need conclusive proof of what your are claiming and not just an opinion.

 

There are no hard and fast rules of what makes an item pass or fail, it is in the opinion of the examiner at the time. The book does say that if in doubt, fail it.

[KPI]

I have a statement from authorised Citroen center where initial work was carried out and the photo evidence of the damage. I would not be able to discover it if the wasn't serviced 6 weeks before MOT and perhaps Kwik-Fit though they found an easy prey not knowing about my extensive work prior to examination. Well, first they questioned brand new wiper blade (obviously to try to replace it with another 'new' ) and on top of that damaged rack gaiters with screwdriver. As someone said there are no easy cases and if they were there would be be no work for lawyers.

[Westmead Fan]

(Kwik-Fit MOT refusal: ‘steering rack gaiters insecure’).

 

where you say there has been damage to the gaiter this is different to what they have failed it on, as on the failure it would have said something different along the lines of ' steering rack gaiter deteriorated/split' what they have failed it on must mean the gaiter has not been fitted properly for example hasn't got clips on to make it secure.

 

what are all 5 points on the mot this vehicle has failed on?

 

Vosa would have been the first people to get involved, to inspect the vehicle trading standards won't know what is a pass or failure for a mot.

 

its going to be hard to prove that kwik fit has damaged your vehicle

[KPI]

That's true however there are only two ways why these gaiters were insecure: A/ Citroen authorised repairer forgotten to fit them in when they done job on steering joints/racks 6 weeks before MOT was carried out or B/ Kwik-Fit done it for purpose for upselling. I have written statement and photo evidence from A that it wasn't their fault and they done job correctly.Moreover I have been explicitly told by A that this is practice Kwik-Fit is famous of. Going further- brand new front wiper for Kwik-Fit technician was not 'clearning offside'. This is utterly rubbish as even another Kwik-Fit employee couldn't find any fault and couldn't explain why this was pointed as one of the refusal point. For me it is obvious they are desperate for business and in need of some (preferably) small and not too complicated job, for which they are eager to go an extra mile and find any fault even if there's any.

[Westmead Fan]

you say you have photo evidence that the work was carried out, how???

 

i have never seen dealers take pictures of completed work on something like that. the wiper part is minor you can get dirt on them & that can make wipers not clear the screen you may need to wipe them, this is one example. you mentioned that their was 5 failures you have mentioned 2 what were the others?

 

as i said before you need to appeal to vosa costing a fee to see if the test was right then go from there, the sooner the better.

[Conniff]

This 'other' KF employee who can't find a fault with the wiper, is he a certified MoT examiner? if not then it just an opinion.

 

I think you are going to struggle with this one despite what you think you might have in the way of evidence. The deliberate damage to the steering boot, how do you know that it wasn't the second garage that did it, how can you prove that you didn't do it.

 

It's not just submitting a list and asking for payment, you are going to have to show that KF deliberately made work for themselves. Other threads on here and payment to others is not proof.