Unauthorised work done on my car***Settled at ADR Mediation***

[robj1]

My cars brakes failed, brake fluid pouring from one of the front wheels.

 

Took it into the nearest garage, a little back street place.

 

I asked him to take a look at the car and let me know what was wrong. He said it might not be until tomorrow. I agreed that wasn't an issue.

 

That evening he phoned me saying it was fixed and £600. He had replaced all the brakes on the car and a caliper. Apparently the caliper was at fault, and the brakes needed doing.

 

The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine.

 

To get my car back I paid on my debit card, refused to sign any paperwork, and told him I was reporting him to trading standards.

 

I have since contacted him in writing requesting a partial refund, offering to pay all parts at cost and 1.5 hours labour for the bit that did need doing.

He has refused.

He has also refused to demonstrate how much he paid for the parts for my car.

 

He did tell me he got the parts from eurocarparts, so I can see he has added 100% markup on the price of the parts as well.

 

No work was approved at all, however how do I prove this.

Where do I go from here?

[sgtbush]

Lba letter and then court unfortunately.

 

You wouldn't be eligible for a charge back thru the bank.

[robj1]

Is it worth speak to the bank, or straight to court?

[sgtbush]

You can try the bank but i cant see what part of the chargeback rules would apply.

 

See

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?473626-Section-75-and-Charge-Back..-gt-Whats-the-difference-and-how-to-utilise-them

Edited April 15, 2018 by Andyorch
Link substituted

[robj1]

Thank you, I will take it straight to court.

 

Any previous cases anyone is aware of?

 

This sort of thing must happen all the time.

[heliosuk]

I think you might have a struggle here. It would be possible to defend on the instructions you gave which are vague at present. What did you tell the garage, what car etc etc? For example if you just said I need the brakes fixing please put it right is a difference to instructing Please fix the leaking caliper.

 

 

 

 

In addition you need to be more specific as to the car, age and mileage.

 

 

At the moment I think you are peeing in the wind unless you give more detail.

[robj1]

Car is worth about 6k, is 8 years old, and the back brakes were recently replaced with evidence.

 

My only instruction to the garage was to "have a look at it for me". My phone number was taken, and I was told he might not be able to look that day, it might be the next.

 

Brake fuild was leaking front the front off side wheel area (hose or caliper).

 

He took my phone number and said he would have a look.

 

He replaced the brakes, pads and discs, front and back and a caliper.

 

I don't disagree the caliper needed doing to be able to drive the car again - he didn't request permission however it could be assumed that permission was given for the caliper as the car couldn't have been driven elsewhere. No quote or estimate was provided to give options.

 

At no point did I think he would touch the rear brakes, let alone completely replace them.

[king12345]

On the very rare occasions i go to a garage for anything I record the conversation and tell them specifically not to fix anything before giving me a price.

I usually add that I'm skint, so they know that they won't have much to squeeze out of me if they did any work.

Got almost screwed by Toyota once for 2K on an 18 month old car with less than 10k miles on the clock.

Learnt a lesson!

[robj1]

Lesson learnt here as well.

 

Santander have asked for my evidence and will look at possibly doing a chargeback! Fingers crossed.

 

I will take the garage to small claims if they decide not to process the chargeback.

[buyer-beware]

If you didn’t authorise repairs why on earth did you pay him ?

 

If you have had brake failure due to fluid loss it has nothing to do with the discs or pads.

[heliosuk]

I still think you will have difficulty in pursuing this. You asked him to fix the leak ( so you say) but he also has a duty of care before he releases the car after repairing the braking system. It's your opinion that the rear brakes needed no work as you presumably assume the rears had been done. By authorising the front caliper work sort of admits you don't understand cars which is to be expected.

 

 

"The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine". Do you have proof?

 

 

MOT only checks for leaks and efficiency along with general condition. They do not measure thickness etc. Garages do.

 

 

If you go to court on this I honestly think you have too many open holes which can be challenged quite easily at the moment from what you have so far posted.

[king12345]

All correct heliosuk, however mot centres do check brake pads tickness.

On my last mot i got an advisory which says "rear brake pads wearing thin below 50%"

[robj1]

I still think you will have difficulty in pursuing this. You asked him to fix the leak ( so you say) but he also has a duty of care before he releases the car after repairing the braking system. It's your opinion that the rear brakes needed no work as you presumably assume the rears had been done. By authorising the front caliper work sort of admits you don't understand cars which is to be expected.

 

 

"The rear brakes were completely replaced 7k miles ago and were fine. The front discs were lightly corroded but not worn and passed an MOT 2k miles ago fine". Do you have proof?

 

 

MOT only checks for leaks and efficiency along with general condition. They do not measure thickness etc. Garages do.

 

 

If you go to court on this I honestly think you have too many open holes which can be challenged quite easily at the moment from what you have so far posted.

 

Hello, thank you for the reply.

 

When I took the car in, I asked them to look at the car. At no point did I ask for anything to be fixed.

 

They garage admit they did not have permission to work on the car and have verbally apologied for this.

 

I have proof of the MOT and this was done at Kwikfit who if at all possible try to sell you brakes.

 

I do know a reasonable amount about cars, I look after my cars well. In this case I was suited and booted and couldn't take the car far due to lack of brakes. I was about 4 miles from home so just took it to the nearest garage.

 

On dropping it off he confirmed he would 'have a look and let me know' it wasn't till that evening that I got a call saying it would be 620 quid - that was the first contact since dropping the car off.

[heliosuk]

Well that's fair enough! I wouldn't trust Kwikfit who like you say try to sell most unnecessary things and are in general incompetent. They have their own sticky here or used to. I think you have to balance the cost of the work against your or you and your passengers lives. If the bill was only £620 for what they have done then on balance you've probably had a result. However we don't know what car, age or mileage.

 

 

On an MOT they will estimate the brake wear, nothing is measured. For example, with most manufacturers there are specifications issued to service departments about brake thickness and minimum standards. If on a service the brake discs are measured and the disc thickness is specified as a minimum of 20.25mm and the reading is 20mm then they have to be changed, if it measured 20.3 then they should remain. MOT stations cannot do this so have to rely on estimates.

 

 

As with all MOT's the result is only valid at the time of the test and standards vary between test centres anyway as is a subjective test and does not rely on objective data.

 

 

I think only balance, whilst it's a bit difficult to understand, I would say the repairing garage has probably done you a favour here as at some point you'd have had to shell out the money anyway. The fact they have apologised is a lessons learnt for them.

 

 

If you did pursuit it then conversely they would be within their rights to remove the parts less wear and tear allowance. This is often forgotten where legal action is suggested. You've had the benefit of the new parts so you'd only be entitled to a refund of the labour cost for fitting the parts.

 

 

Whenever you take a car for service or repair it's imperative a job card is raised detailing what you require when you arrive at the service centre. This is actually a legal requirement or was many moons ago. It stops any misunderstandings like this.

 

 

Hope this helps!

[robj1]

Thank you - the car is a 4x4, its on 80k miles and is worth about £6-7k and is 9 years old.

 

The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together.

 

I am unsure why you think the garage did me a favour changing the back disc and pads again, when history shows the pads were probably 80% as new and disks 90% as new - can you explain better, maybe I am not understanding.

 

I understand why they decided the change the front pads and discs while replacing the faulty caliper - I don't however understand why they didn't phone to check first. I really don't understand why or how they thought changing the rear pads and discs was acceptable or reasonable.

 

This money was a lot for me to have to pay out, especially as I feel its added no benefit to the car.

[heliosuk]

I'm a bit unsure of your statement: The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together.

 

 

When changing pads you do them in axle sets, both on left and right. The same follows with discs, with new discs go new pads in an axle set. However in your case something does seem a little odd. From the way you describe it and this is the statement I'm having a little difficulty with:

 

 

"The first set of rear discs were replaced at 73k miles and had a reasonable amount of life left, but the pad needed changing (for the second time) at this mileage so both were replaced together."

 

 

Are you saying that now at 80K miles you are on your 3rd set of pads?

 

 

Based on what you say so far it would suggest the rear brakes pads and discs were replaced unnecessarily and indeed you should have been told/called before with an explanation why and left the decision with you.

However just bear in mind what I've pointed out in that the garage can legally remove the parts less benefit afforded and you have to defend that provided they can replace with the original parts supplied.. Now thats's going to be difficult for them .

 

 

I think you have a few options here:

1. Go all out which I think will get you nowhere. The garage could insist in their defence they have complied with the request from you as there is no signed job card.

2. Based on what you have posted here ask them to remove and refund the labour charge based on the fact you have the benefit of the new parts.

3. Follow the sue grabbit and run brigade and perhaps end up with nothing???

[robj1]

Hi - Yes, I understand they are replaced in axle sets, maybe I wasn't clear.

 

Rear Axle

approx. 35k miles rear pads replaced

approx. 73k miles rear pads replaced (discs probably would have lasted another 35k miles so replaced at the same time as pads

approx. 80k miles rear pads and discs replaced by the garage in question.

 

The garage is located in a very wealthy area and I suspect this type of up-selling of work is very much common place and not usually questioned.

 

My first communication with the garage was saying I was will to pay for all the parts at cost, but only half the labour - this they refused.

 

They have also refused to prove to me how much they paid for the replacement parts.

 

I am not trying to get something for free, I am trying not to get ripped off and hopefully make the garage think prior to doing it to the next customer.

 

They are not responding to future communication, so it looks like this will go to small claims.

 

Lets try that again without the errors!! sorry typing fast as in work:

[heliosuk]

Well I think your first communication was more than fair and you should use this as part of your claim. You offered a fair settlement, in fact more than fair. I'd go for it but it will be a long and drawn out process. Your key point is that there is no signed job card which is a legal requirement!! ;-)

[robj1]

Is a job card a true legal requirement?

 

Thank you again for your help.

[Hammy1962]

This should be interesting.

 

H

[heliosuk]

I'm pretty sure it is. From a manufactures point of view it's a requirement that any job card for warranty is signed by both the customer and approved dealer rep. I think this will boil down to what was said at the time so if you said I have a brake problem and I need them fixed to what they found and what they did. As before, you seemed to have offered a half way point but had a legal job card been there then it's black and white. At the moment it will be their word against theirs!

[robj1]

The small claims papers were issues, the trader left it to the 11th hour and declined the claim saying I asked him to fix the brakes.

 

This is a categoric lie, and the first time he has said this. All previous email correspondence he has never said this. When meeting with him to discuss he offered an apology for not contacting me and gaining approval for the work to be completed.

 

Looks like this will be going to court!

[robj1]

I have a friend who works with Barristers and has had my case and all evidence reviewed by a Barrister, it's looking 90%+ in my favour for a full pay out.

 

I would have preferred to come to an agreement with the company prior to court as the chances of me bumping into the guy locally is high and I don't want bad feelings - with costs, this could be more than the total of the work!

 

The company has acccepted mediation now, so we need to get through that and if nothing is settled during that, it will be going to court.

[AndyOrch]

You stated in post#21 the trader declined the claim...you mean he submitted a defence ....must have if its gone to mediation/allocation ?

 

Andy

[robj1]

You stated in post#21 the trader declined the claim...you mean he submitted a defence ....must have if its gone to mediation/allocation ?

 

Andy

 

Hi, yes sorry, he has submitted a defence.