Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
    • I've had a quick (well, quick for a thread of this length),  read of this thread and to be honest I'm struggling to make heads nor tails of the actual crux of the issue here. You seem awfully convinced that whatever is going on is worth the fight and the odds are in your favour but with how the thread has gone it seems that one trail goes cold so you simply move on to another in an attempt to delay the inevitable. All it does is end up digging holes and confusing others and yourself which means any advice given to you is completely pointless. I note that for the life of this thread there has not been any documentation or correspondence uploaded for people to have a look. Have you got any that you'd be willing to redact and upload for members to assist you? Right now, it seems people are shooting out advice while being in the dark because it's starting to become very difficult for people who weren't here at the start of this (including myself) to follow along. Right now, this whole thread is just hypothetical "He said, she said" and is going nowhere fast. Nothing more than basic advice can be given which, as you've sought out some legal advice, is likely not sufficient to actually come to any sort of conclusion. I, personally, am starting to agree with others that it may be best to consider bankruptcy and put the matter behind you.  
    • Thanks for coming back to us. There are no guarantees - but remember that so far MET have not had the guts to put even a single case before a judge.  Not once. Yours is one of seven court cases. Three ongoing like yours. In two MET bottled it as Witness Statement stage approached. In one the allocating judge decided their Particulars of Claim were rubbish and threw the case in the bin. Just the one victory by MET by default when the motorist stupidly didn't file a defence. So there is every chance that MET will throw in the towel in your case too if you stand firm. Please keep us informed of what is happening. Regarding being abroad, that is no reason for things going wrong, you can request an on-line hearing and we've had several cases where the PPC gave up when the motorist moved abroad. But please keep us in the loop.
  • 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

Main dealer service - invoiced for wrong oil, claims that correct oil was used


mrn21
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3783 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

Dear CAG users,

 

 

I recently put my 3-year-old car in for service at a main dealer that is part of a much larger chain. It was a special fixed-price deal for an interim service.

 

 

I noticed the next day that the invoice listed an oil of the correct viscosity, but which is not in line with the car manufacturer's recommendations and is not appropriate for an engine with DPF.

 

 

It is also suspiciously cheap for the spec that should have gone in (£20 for 4.5L), however the pricing on the itemised invoice was fudged for the price-fixed offer so I'm aware it may not have actually been £20.

 

 

After phoning the dealer twice and getting nowhere, I went by in person to speak the service manager.

 

  1. He showed me some top up bottles of the oil they said they used on the car, which would be a suitable oil but was not what I was invoiced for.
  2. He was not aware of the differences between the oil listed on the invoice and that which they were using (from the same manufacturer with similar but still distinct names).
  3. The chain of dealers appear to have a deal with this oil manufacturer, but it wasn't clear whether they get one product that is used in all cars (in which case I got the right stuff) or several products (in which case its still possible they put the wrong one in).

 

 

All through this I was being made to feel like a very awkward customer. Their normal clientele evidently don't ask many questions!

 

 

I'm still not convinced that I got the correct oil, but don't know what I can do next. Any ideas?

 

 

Thanks

Edited by mrn21
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too know of a large car retailer (many branches) who use cheap oil when car presented for "service plan" service.

There is no quick cheap way to identify oil used, but if you take a sample from the sump i think it can be analysed---but don't know by which body.

PM Heliosuk on this one---he will probably know just what can and can't be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing here is that it's the correct viscosity. That's the killer on any engine especially with todays extreme tolerances. The fact it is suitable for a DPF is a myth. Oils suitable for these only have an additive which aids to a small and certain extent the emissions. The additives have little or no effect on the actual lubrication properties.

 

When a garage buys oil it's in vast quantities such as 2000 litres at a time. Oil companies promote this and discount it which enable garages to discount. When invoicing this to the end user the computer systems are not usually set up to determine this so there is a default oil price for the fixed price servicing which is what you probably saw.

 

As Conniff points out, the mark up on garages oil is horrendous.

 

On balance you probably got the correct oil but because of computer system limitations it does not show as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to the bottom of it with the service manager:

- The dealer only receive one oil, which is appropriate for the car

- The description used on the invoice is incorrect and hasn't been updated for a while, and I was apparently the first person to notice

- I'm satisfied that everything is fine and they are updating the details for future invoices

 

On the matter of what made the oil on the invoice inappropriate:

- It was of the correct viscosity and met some of the manufacturer specs

- It was not low-SAPS / ACEA C3 (one of the req specs), which could lead to accelerated DPF ash buildup that would not be shifted by regeneration

- It was semi-synthetic

Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out this invoicing issue is not uncommon. It probably met all of the manufacturers specs as well as they are very difficult to differentiate unfortunately. If a diesel with a DPF is used correctly there is no need to use a specific supposedly low ash oil, it just gives dealers an excuse to hype the oil prices.

 

If an engine can meet Euro 5 regs there is probably no need for DPF's any way. It's just another EU reg that controls imports from countries where cars engines have to have them to meet Euro 4.

 

Wait until Euro 6 kicks in where the exhausts have to have a substance injected which smells like cats pee!! Coming soon to your area!!

 

Glad it's all been cleared up though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...