Garage Damage / delays - can I claim consequential losses?

[extrobe]

Can I claim consequential loss following a garage damaging my car?

 

I took my car into a garage for routine brake pad replacement (& tyres), following a 'brake check' the previous day. My car has automatic handbraking, so required use of specialist equipment to replace the pads. They were aware of this (was asked to go to a different branch where they had the right kit to do the replacement)

 

It was a sit & wait appointment, and was told it would take them about 90 mins.

 

By the time they closed 4 hours later, although they had replaced the pads & tyres, they were struggling to get the hand-braking to work. They had to give me a lift home, and was told they'd update me the following day.

 

By the end of the following day, they'd still not been able to resolve the issue, and had to take the car to Hyundai.

 

Hyundai did some diagnostics, and confirmed that the rear callipers required replacement. This would take approx 4 weeks (due to availability of parts).

 

(For those curious - Hyundai tell me the rear callipers have small servo motors within them holding the pads, which have to be controlled by specialist kit when replacing the pads. If that kit isn't used / used correctly / designed for use with that car, it can damage these servos - that's what appears to have happened. The car is only ~2 years old)

 

The garage accepted responsibility for the repairs needed, and even have their insurer involved. By the end of day 3, they provided me with a courtesy car.

 

As a result, I had to take 2 days off work, and been without my car for 3 weeks (and counting) whilst they sort out the problem. Do I have an option to claim from them the time I've lost from work and/or loss of use of the car? (latter is difficult to quantify, I'm sure - but the depreciation value over 4 weeks would probably be a start if i could work it out!). Especially given the car they've given my is not comparable with my own car - not even close.

[f16]

extrobe,

I think your thread would be better answered in the motoring subforum "Garage Services".

 

I would think Site Team will move you

 

Regards

f16

[rebel11]

Hi extrobe

 

The supply of goods and services act 1982 applies, yes you can claim consequential losses.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/supply-of-goods-and-services-act-1982

 

Thread moved to correct forum.

[extrobe]

Thanks both.

 

(and thanks for moving to a more appropriate place)

 

What's the best approach? Let them sort all the issues out and get my car back (so as not to pee them off into refusing to settle the Hyundai bill!) and then write to their office address outlining my request?

 

What level of 'proof' would I have to provide they were at fault? (vs 'goodwill')

Would the fact they've gone ahead and paid for the repairs be sufficient 'proof'?

 

I know Hyundai provided the garage with a technical report after the diagnosis (as this was then passed to their insurer) - I might see if Hyundai will provide me with a copy of this.

 

The Supply of goods and services link suggests 'balance of probability' is required - I personally reckon that them paying for the repairs tips the balance in my favour.

[f16]

extrobe,

 

there is very good "Expert" advice on this forum, from CAGGERS with years of experience in the Motor Trade.

 

"oddjobbob" and "heliosuk" spring to mind.

 

See what they suggest later.

[BazzaS]

Thanks both.

 

(and thanks for moving to a more appropriate place)

 

What's the best approach? Let them sort all the issues out and get my car back (so as not to pee them off into refusing to settle the Hyundai bill!) and then write to their office address outlining my request?

 

What level of 'proof' would I have to provide they were at fault? (vs 'goodwill')

Would the fact they've gone ahead and paid for the repairs be sufficient 'proof'?

 

I know Hyundai provided the garage with a technical report after the diagnosis (as this was then passed to their insurer) - I might see if Hyundai will provide me with a copy of this.

 

The Supply of goods and services link suggests 'balance of probability' is required - I personally reckon that them paying for the repairs tips the balance in my favour.

 

You can claim for the direct economic loss (the damage they caused ), and loss consequential to that. You can 't claim for pure economic loss.

So, in the 'Spartan Steel' case, there was a "melt" of metal in a furnace when a 3rd party damaged the electricity company's cable.

The furnace operator could claim for the loss of the 'melt' which was ruined, and the loss of profit they would had made on the melt. They couldn't claim for other profits they would have made but lost due to the electricity being off.

 

The consequential losses must be "flowing naturally" from the negligence, thus reasonably foreseeable from the breach, or in "reasonable contemplation" of the parties.

 

So, if you had had a plum contract lined up, and stood to loose thousands if your car was unavailable, (this being an unusual way of loosing more than usual ) : you can't claim for that UNLESS you had said to them e.g. "The car will be available won't it? I have a particularly valuable contract that means I must have the car tonight" (case law: Victoria Laundries).

 

Once a type of loss is foreseeable, the whole scale of that loss is recoverable (case law : Parsons v Uttley Ingham : where 254 valuable pigs were lost, but the defendants weren't let off the hook by it being 254 rather than just 10 or 20)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Steel_%26_Alloys_Ltd_v_Martin_%26_Co_(Contractors)_Ltd

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Laundry_(Windsor)_Ltd_v_Newman_Industries_Ltd

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_(Livestock)_Ltd_v_Uttley_Ingham_%26_Co_Ltd

[rebel11]

Yes, it seems that the OP is aware of 'consequential loss'.

 

extrobe,

 

there is very good "Expert" advice on this forum, from CAGGERS with years of experience in the Motor Trade.

 

"oddjobbob" and "heliosuk" spring to mind.

 

See what they suggest later.

[extrobe]

Thanks BazzaS - I may need to read a bit more into the differences between consequential loss and economic loss as a result of the damage - I sort of get it, but not 100%

 

The fact i needed the car to get to work would not have been discussed prior to works commencing - given it was only a 90min 'slot', it was never a necessity. However, as soon as possible delays to resolving the issue were discussed with me, I immediately pointed out the need to get to work, and that I would have to take time of work until I had a car - but it still took them until the end of day 3 to finally get one to me. Therefore, it was both foreseeable (I advised them at the earliest natural opportunity) and avoidable (they had opportunities to get a car to me earlier - they were waiting on their insurer to give the go-ahead).

 

Would this be sufficient to show consequential loss? Or am I pushing my chances?

 

~

 

Also, not that I'm expecting it to happen, but should they offer a discount off the final bill when I go to pay, would I be expected to deduct this amount from any claim? Morally, I would probably do so - but would I be obliged to?

 

Thanks again

[heliosuk]

Before steaming in with scurrilous claims for compensation I'd make absolutely sure this is not an inherent fault with the car which is the manufacturers responsibility. I seem to remember Hyundai having issues with electric park brake calipers in the last few years and in fact might actually have issued a re-call.

 

Which model is it?

 

Further, the fact that the original garage referred it to a branch that had the specialist equipment shows a degree of competence. It could be they followed the procedure to the book. So how are you going to prove negligence which has led to the "consequential loss".

 

In addition it's hardly their fault Hyundai cannot supply replacement calipers is it? If they could it wouldn't be an issue would it?

 

Can't see what you hope to achieve here. Seems like the original garage are doing what they can to keep you happy.

[scaniaman]

There are reports elsewhere on just how bad Hyundia supply of spares are, and if memory serves me right it was brake parts that were the issue here as well.

[heliosuk]

[quote=extrobe;4597614

The Supply of goods and services link suggests 'balance of probability' is required - I personally reckon that them paying for the repairs tips the balance in my favour.

 

I don't reckon that this is the case at all and would strongly advise you take heed of Bazzas advice rather than that of standard links posted by some of the site team which are grossly misleading most of the time.

 

Each case has it's own merits and depends on the circumstances at the time. In this case, if the garage concerned has followed the correct procedure (which obviously they will state they have) and then referred to an approved dealer for which they appear to have admitted liability for then I cannot fathom out what you suggest pursuing them for.

 

Irrespective of this, did you sign a job card at the point of handing over as frequently these have a force majeure clause in them which they could invoke (unforeseen circumstances).

 

If you didn't you might have some room to manoeuvre but at the moment I think you are stuck with a rather unfortunate situation whereby no one can be blamed apart from Hyundais ****poor parts supply situation probably brought on by the fact there is allegedly an inherrant fault with the parts affected.

[f16]

On the main index of this site, listed under the heading "Helpful Organisations"

Is "Recall UK" started by "locutus"

 

The Hyundias i30 was recalled for a parking brake problem according to that.

[rebel11]

The OP was told it was a 90 min appointment, after 4 hours, the fault still wasn't resolved, the following day the fault still wasn't resolved, the day after it still wasn't resolved. Then he was provided with an inferior car, then he was told the parts would take 4 weeks, yes the garage did help, but the OP is owed some compensation. It clearly isn't the OP's fault that the garage or Hyundai cannot supply replacement calipers is it.

 

Please enlighten me as to why the garage carried out the replacement/did the job, instead of stating that there is a inherent problem, contact the manufacturer?

 

The garage would have a list of re-calls and the reason for the re-call.

 

Before steaming in with scurrilous claims for compensation I'd make absolutely sure this is not an inherent fault with the car which is the manufacturers responsibility. I seem to remember Hyundai having issues with electric park brake calipers in the last few years and in fact might actually have issued a re-call.

 

Which model is it?

 

Further, the fact that the original garage referred it to a branch that had the specialist equipment shows a degree of competence. It could be they followed the procedure to the book. So how are you going to prove negligence which has led to the "consequential loss".

 

In addition it's hardly their fault Hyundai cannot supply replacement calipers is it? If they could it wouldn't be an issue would it?

 

Can't see what you hope to achieve here. Seems like the original garage are doing what they can to keep you happy.

[rebel11]

Tell me what's misleading about the following link?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29

 

I remember you defending garages months back, stating that there are only a few bad garages, when all the evidence points to the fact that garages are a major problem for consumers. According to CAB it's the third on their list of complaints they deal with.

 

That is a huge problem and it's not a few garages.

 

 

I don't reckon that this is the case at all and would strongly advise you take heed of Bazzas advice rather than that of standard links posted by some of the site team which are grossly misleading most of the time.

 

Each case has it's own merits and depends on the circumstances at the time. In this case, if the garage concerned has followed the correct procedure (which obviously they will state they have) and then referred to an approved dealer for which they appear to have admitted liability for then I cannot fathom out what you suggest pursuing them for.

 

Irrespective of this, did you sign a job card at the point of handing over as frequently these have a force majeure clause in them which they could invoke (unforeseen circumstances).

 

If you didn't you might have some room to manoeuvre but at the moment I think you are stuck with a rather unfortunate situation whereby no one can be blamed apart from Hyundais ****poor parts supply situation probably brought on by the fact there is allegedly an inherrant fault with the parts affected.

[BazzaS]

I don't reckon that this is the case at all and would strongly advise you take heed of Bazzas advice rather than that of standard links posted by some of the site team which are grossly misleading most of the time.

 

I'm not sure my posting contradicts much of what the site team have posted, and it was intended more as a "framework" response of the key leading cases that then needs applying to the specifics of a case......

 

Each case has it's own merits and depends on the circumstances at the time.

 

Ain't that the truth!

Were it not so , there would be no need for lawyers (nor, possibly, even for CAG)

[extrobe]

Thanks guys.

I'm not trying to claim something I'm not entitled to - but equally, I've not looked down this type of route before, so issues like 'economic loss v consequential loss' and whether or not a garage has been negligent are still bits I'm learning. Please don't think I'm trying to 'pull a fast one' or anything - I'm just trying to understand if I might have a right to address the fact I'm 2 days work / holiday out of pocket.

 

I can't find any historic issues to rear callipers in i40's - I frequent a Hyundai forum, and have asked out there as well. Hyundai have confirmed that the garage (well, their insurer) are footing the bill (and although they've not told me what it is, they've told me what the parts cost - it's going to be a big bill) would rule out it being a warranty / recall issue.

 

Yes, the garage, to their credit, have been better than many would have been in a similar situation - they never quibbled into resolving the issue. Perhaps I should be thankful for that alone and walk away from this putting it down to experience. I was that way inclined for the first couple of weeks.

 

But... they did (on the evidence available to me) damage my car, they have left me without my car for 4 weeks, they did leave me without any car for 3 days (and took a lot of pushing to get one), and I did have to take 2 additional days off work whilst I waited out their resolution.

 

I'm not trying to be greedy - just trying to get myself back into the position I would have been had the work been carried out as quoted. But, if it's a bit of a long shot, because they can/could prove their staff knew how to use the equipment correctly, and is just one of those things, a slip up / oversight perhaps, and unlikely to get anywhere - I'll walk away from it with, on balance, a bit of inconvenience and a couple of unplanned days spent at home with the wife.

 

I do value everyone's input though, and welcome the discussion on its merits - thank you

[BazzaS]

Thanks guys.

I'm not trying to claim something I'm not entitled to - but equally, I've not looked down this type of route before, so issues like 'economic loss v consequential loss' and whether or not a garage has been negligent are still bits I'm learning. Please don't think I'm trying to 'pull a fast one' or anything - I'm just trying to understand if I might have a right to address the fact I'm 2 days work / holiday out of pocket.

 

I can't find any historic issues to rear callipers in i40's - I frequent a Hyundai forum, and have asked out there as well. Hyundai have confirmed that the garage (well, their insurer) are footing the bill (and although they've not told me what it is, they've told me what the parts cost - it's going to be a big bill) would rule out it being a warranty / recall issue.

 

Yes, the garage, to their credit, have been better than many would have been in a similar situation - they never quibbled into resolving the issue. Perhaps I should be thankful for that alone and walk away from this putting it down to experience. I was that way inclined for the first couple of weeks.

 

But... they did (on the evidence available to me) damage my car, they have left me without my car for 4 weeks, they did leave me without any car for 3 days (and took a lot of pushing to get one), and I did have to take 2 additional days off work whilst I waited out their resolution.

 

I'm not trying to be greedy - just trying to get myself back into the position I would have been had the work been carried out as quoted. But, if it's a bit of a long shot, because they can/could prove their staff knew how to use the equipment correctly, and is just one of those things, a slip up / oversight perhaps, and unlikely to get anywhere - I'll walk away from it with, on balance, a bit of inconvenience and a couple of unplanned days spent at home with the wife.

 

I do value everyone's input though, and welcome the discussion on its merits - thank you

 

It isn't "economic loss vs consequential loss" .... It is "pure economic loss" (as all loss quantifiable by damages is in effect 'economic'!)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_economic_loss_in_English_Law

 

As for "I'm not trying to be greedy - just trying to get myself back into the position I would have been had the work been carried out as quoted."

 

This is pretty much what the courts held in 1848 (and it is still good law) in another leading case (Robinson v Harman)

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson_v_Harman

 

"the rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed."

[oddjobbob]

I agree with Helios here... you can try and get some compensayshun if you want to, but they are fixing your car at no extra cost (quite rightly so) and are doing their best having lent you a car.

 

 

in life, s**t happens, just get your car back and let them do their job is my take on it.

[extrobe]

Thanks oddjobbob - yes, perhaps I need to be more thankful that they're not trying to lump me with a ~2 grand repair bill (on top of the original bill I need to pay)

[heliosuk]

Please enlighten me as to why the garage carried out the replacement/did the job, instead of stating that there is a inherent problem, contact the manufacturer?

 

The garage would have a list of re-calls and the reason for the re-call.

 

Obviously Rebel you have little or no understanding of the industry.

 

The garage identified the fault and reacted accordingly. Realising specialist equipment was required they referred it to a branch that had capabilities to deal with the repair. In my book this is a responsible action to take. No garage apart from franchised or official repair agents will have a list of re-calls especially if they are independents operating in the industry.

 

This goes on to the fact that there is a difference between a recall and a service action issued by the manufacturer/VOSA. You need to understand the difference.

 

A recall is where a manufacturer is obliged to recover a very high percentage of cars (usually instigated by VOSA or appropriate operating authority) whereas a service campaign is instigated by the manufacturer alone (where there is usually a time limit placed on the dealer getting the work done or the owner presenting the car to an approved dealership. The two are very different and often misconstrued by the media and on here with regular monotony.

[heliosuk]

Thanks guys.

I'm not trying to claim something I'm not entitled to - but equally, I've not looked down this type of route before, so issues like 'economic loss v consequential loss' and whether or not a garage has been negligent are still bits I'm learning. Please don't think I'm trying to 'pull a fast one' or anything - I'm just trying to understand if I might have a right to address the fact I'm 2 days work / holiday out of pocket.

 

I can't find any historic issues to rear callipers in i40's - I frequent a Hyundai forum, and have asked out there as well. Hyundai have confirmed that the garage (well, their insurer) are footing the bill (and although they've not told me what it is, they've told me what the parts cost - it's going to be a big bill) would rule out it being a warranty / recall issue.

 

Yes, the garage, to their credit, have been better than many would have been in a similar situation - they never quibbled into resolving the issue. Perhaps I should be thankful for that alone and walk away from this putting it down to experience. I was that way inclined for the first couple of weeks.

 

But... they did (on the evidence available to me) damage my car, they have left me without my car for 4 weeks, they did leave me without any car for 3 days (and took a lot of pushing to get one), and I did have to take 2 additional days off work whilst I waited out their resolution.

 

I'm not trying to be greedy - just trying to get myself back into the position I would have been had the work been carried out as quoted. But, if it's a bit of a long shot, because they can/could prove their staff knew how to use the equipment correctly, and is just one of those things, a slip up / oversight perhaps, and unlikely to get anywhere - I'll walk away from it with, on balance, a bit of inconvenience and a couple of unplanned days spent at home with the wife.

 

I do value everyone's input though, and welcome the discussion on its merits - thank you

 

I think on balance you are taking a very sensible view on this. You could easily spend more time pursuing this than you will get reward/redress out of it. It's well worth the discussion though.

 

The reality is that the garage have done everything correctly (unless you can prove otherwise and that won't be easy based on what you have posted) and have tried to mitigate your loss by providing you with an alternative means of transport. It might not be the best but then they are under no obligation legally to do so either.

 

However if it was me....I might consider compensation for having to spend an extra two days with the wife!!!!

[f16]

 

However if it was me....I might consider compensation for having to spend an extra two days with the wife!!!!

 

 

I think I'm gonna find a way of giving "Mrs heliosuk" a link to this thread !!!

 

Spot on advice though.

[rebel11]

It's good to see that you have a 'good' understanding of the industry, lol.

 

 

 

Obviously Rebel you have little or no understanding of the industry.

 

The garage identified the fault and reacted accordingly. Realising specialist equipment was required they referred it to a branch that had capabilities to deal with the repair. In my book this is a responsible action to take. No garage apart from franchised or official repair agents will have a list of re-calls especially if they are independents operating in the industry.

 

This goes on to the fact that there is a difference between a recall and a service action issued by the manufacturer/VOSA. You need to understand the difference.

 

A recall is where a manufacturer is obliged to recover a very high percentage of cars (usually instigated by VOSA or appropriate operating authority) whereas a service campaign is instigated by the manufacturer alone (where there is usually a time limit placed on the dealer getting the work done or the owner presenting the car to an approved dealership. The two are very different and often misconstrued by the media and on here with regular monotony.