final bill more than quote.

[Hammy1962]

Hi all

 

Don't forget Coniff, the fitting of a used seat belt stalk may have put the lives of the driver, passenger, any children, and even more importantly given my user name, their pets at risk.

 

Not to mention the pedestrians they hit after sailing though the windscreen.

 

Surely this important, safety related repair should have been carried out using a new part.

 

Hammy

[Conniff]

Posting no longer required.

[Hammy1962]

Am I the only one on here that can smell fish..............................

 

Hammy

[Conniff]

Hammy if you have nothing constructive to contribute then I suggest you find something more suitable.

[Hammy1962]

Sorry, just couldn't resist it.

 

If I get to remain on here without getting banned, you will see I can be helpful and constructive, given the right circumstances.

 

Hammy

[freakyleaky]

Just ignore him conniff! He will be gone soon enough!

 

Reading your posts so far hammy you don't appear to be here to help!

[Hammy1962]

You have to admit, it is a bit of an unlikely tale.

 

Hammy

[freakyleaky]

Jo happens to be a friend of mine and she does not tell lies. Can you please refrain from posting unhelpful comments!

[Hammy1962]

Oop's

 

Hammy

[ukaviator]

Hi all

 

Don't forget Coniff, the fitting of a used seat belt stalk may have put the lives of the driver, passenger, any children, and even more importantly given my user name, their pets at risk.

 

Not to mention the pedestrians they hit after sailing though the windscreen.

 

Surely this important, safety related repair should have been carried out using a new part.

 

Hammy

 

 

Hi Team

 

I have'nt read the whole thread, but as an ex Policeman i would strongly advise that safety parts, like seat belt clasps, or stalks, are replaced by new parts. I have seen one that appears to hold, but popped out later on when driving. Turns out the car had been in an accident before, and the item was not replaced. The driver hit the steering wheel and had to have surgery on a cracked cheek bone.

 

Best be safe and replace it with a new one.

 

Uk

[ukaviator]

Jo

 

Just read some of your thread here. A few points that may help.

 

Every main dealer works to "Standard Times". These are the times the vehicle manufacturers recommend a Qualified mechanic, should take to carry out the job on a vehicle. These "Standard Times" are documented by the manufacturer, and every dealer should know these times. You could allow maybe 20% added extra time if the vehicle is old etc, and bolts are seized. If the garage is'nt a Mazda dealer, then a little extra time could be expected.

 

Also the use of used seat belt parts is concerning. You should always replace with new saftey parts.

 

When the vehicle was booked in, did your friend sign a job card?. Every garage should fill out a job card, which is authorisation given to them to carry out work on the vehicle. No job card, no authorised work, no workshop insurance if the vehicle caught fire, for instance.

 

If there was a job card, and the work carried out without permission was extra, then phone calls should have been made to the owner for the authorisation of that extra work.

 

38 hours to carry out the work is very excessive. At best i can come up with is:

 

2 x wiper blades = 10 mins

5 x bulbs = 1.5 hours allowing for cover removal etc

1 x timing belt = 2 hours

6 x brake pipe nuts = 2 hours, modifying the nut ends using a flanging tool

11 x brake pipe Pere FT (what ever these are) = 1 hour related to above

1 x brake pipe clips = The pipes were removed anyway, so maybe 15 mins

2 x pipe joiners Pipes were off anyway no time

1 x used seat belt stalk = 40 mins

4 x brake fluid = 1 hour to replace

 

8hrs 35 mins + 1 hour MOT X2

 

10HRS 35 MINS TOTAL

 

4 tins of brake fluid is excessive too. I'm sure the system, even when empty would only hold 2, even after bleeding the brakes.

 

You could also remind the garage that under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 link Here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/123321-misrepresentation-act-1967-a.html#post1277730

 

Could also be used. I assume the van is being used for a business, so there is loss of earnings there.

 

Might be worth calling a main Mazda dealer, and ask about the standard workshop times, for a better idea of the total time to repair the vehicle. I think trading standards would be interested in this one.

[Dont trust the banks]

This seems to be getting more complicated as more details come to light.

 

Yer

 

 

 

It's a bit hard to work all this out without the full story, there is mention of another van for a donor engine etc; but you're saying that this is all for the MoT of the van. There should be two bills if this is the case as he mentions 'for another job'.

 

Yer..........

 

Am I the only one on here that can smell fish..............................

 

 

No

 

Hammy

 

You have to admit, it is a bit of an unlikely tale.

 

Yer

 

Hammy

 

Jo happens to be a friend of mine and she does not tell lies.

 

O Yer?

 

There is clearly far more to all this than jo first told us

[freakyleaky]

This seems to be getting more complicated as more details come to light.

 

Yer

Yer..........

O Yer?

 

There is clearly far more to all this than jo first told us

 

 

Please explain! Jo has given all the details as she has become aware of them.

[Conniff]

No there isn't. She is trying to explain as much as she can from what she is being told. It is always harder this way and I admit it would be easier if we had the story from the owner, but at present that isn't possible.

 

We will get there.

 

We don't need numptys making inappropriate comments thank you.

[patdavies]

8hrs 35 mins + 1 hour MOT X2

 

10HRS 35 MINS TOTAL

 

 

They can't charge labour for the MoT tests. The labour cost is built into the standard charge.

[Conniff]

2 x wiper blades = 10 mins

5 x bulbs = 1.5 hours allowing for cover removal etc

1 x timing belt = 2 hours

6 x brake pipe nuts = 2 hours, modifying the nut ends using a flanging tool

11 x brake pipe Pere FT (what ever these are) = 1 hour related to above

1 x brake pipe clips = The pipes were removed anyway, so maybe 15 mins

2 x pipe joiners Pipes were off anyway no time

1 x used seat belt stalk = 40 mins

4 x brake fluid = 1 hour to replace

 

I don't think the timing belt should be included, we haven't had confirmation of authorisation for this job yet, but it's not required as part of the MoT.

Brake pipe comes in a coil and can take a while to uncurl, cut to length and then form to fit the vehicle contours and clip into place.

Pipe joiner means he must have cut the pipe on the vehicle and replaced a section forming new flairs at each end of the joint as well as on the new pipe.

Fluid could have been purchased from the local petrol station and they usually sell only the 250ml size, so mayber correct.

 

Wont be able to use the misrepresentation act until it has been confirmed there is misrepresentation, (although even an amateur mechanic wouldn't take that many hours). This is why I suggest that a mechanic is taken to inspect the work carried out before agreeing to paying anything, or escalating the action. If there is work billed that hasn't been carried out then the bill can be renegotiated from a position of strength.

[Hammy1962]

I would have thought that an authorised VOSA MOT Testing station would have to be VAT registered, or not?

 

Hammy

[ukaviator]

They can't charge labour for the MoT tests. The labour cost is built into the standard charge.

 

Sorry for the confusion Pat. I was working out the total time at the Garage. 38 hrs is way too excessive in time.

[patdavies]

I would have thought that an authorised VOSA MOT Testing station would have to be VAT registered, or not?

 

Hammy

 

VAT registration is absolutely nothing to do with VOSA; it is purely dependent on turnover and is dealt with by HMRC.

[Dont trust the banks]

I have'nt read the whole thread, but as an ex Policeman i would strongly advise that safety parts, like seat belt clasps, or stalks, are replaced by new parts. I have seen one that appears to hold, but popped out later on when driving. Turns out the car had been in an accident before, and the item was not replaced. The driver hit the steering wheel and had to have surgery on a cracked cheek bone.

 

Best be safe and replace it with a new one.

 

Well based on that......Shouldnt every used car ever sod have new seat belts fitted just in case??????

 

 

Its a fair point but is it relevant????

 

or is it just fueling the fire?

[Guest nez69]

as a person who works in the motor trade with over 16 years experience i have read with interest.

 

although it seems to me that someone is not telling the complete story.

i dont think anyone has the right to judge before we all know the truth so maybe we could have the full story in plain english and then decide the appropriate action?

 

with regards to the cambelt being part of the mot, most mot stations can refuse to mot a diesel if the cambelt has not been replaced according to schedule as during the test itself the belt is put under immense strain and if it snaps would then start huge ball rolling as to who was responsible.

 

you mention an engine change at one point? please can you tell us the full story behind this as it seems this may also have a bearing on the invoice, did the garage do any work regarding this?

 

hope this helps and lets hear some more details please.

[Dont trust the banks]

Jo

 

Just read some of your thread here. A few points that may help.

 

Every main dealer works to "Standard Times". These are the times the vehicle manufacturers recommend a Qualified mechanic, should take to carry out the job on a vehicle. These "Standard Times" are documented by the manufacturer, and every dealer should know these times. You could allow maybe 20% added extra time if the vehicle is old etc, and bolts are seized. If the garage is'nt a Mazda dealer, then a little extra time could be expected.

 

Also the use of used seat belt parts is concerning. You should always replace with new saftey parts.

 

When the vehicle was booked in, did your friend sign a job card?. Every garage should fill out a job card, which is authorisation given to them to carry out work on the vehicle. No job card, no authorised work, no workshop insurance if the vehicle caught fire, for instance.

 

If there was a job card, and the work carried out without permission was extra, then phone calls should have been made to the owner for the authorisation of that extra work.

 

38 hours to carry out the work is very excessive. At best i can come up with is:

 

2 x wiper blades = 10 mins

5 x bulbs = 1.5 hours allowing for cover removal etc

1 x timing belt = 2 hours

6 x brake pipe nuts = 2 hours, modifying the nut ends using a flanging tool

11 x brake pipe Pere FT (what ever these are) = 1 hour related to above

1 x brake pipe clips = The pipes were removed anyway, so maybe 15 mins

2 x pipe joiners Pipes were off anyway no time

1 x used seat belt stalk = 40 mins

4 x brake fluid = 1 hour to replace

 

8hrs 35 mins + 1 hour MOT X2

 

10HRS 35 MINS TOTAL

 

4 tins of brake fluid is excessive too. I'm sure the system, even when empty would only hold 2, even after bleeding the brakes.

 

You could also remind the garage that under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 link Here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/statutes-library/123321-misrepresentation-act-1967-a.html#post1277730

 

Could also be used. I assume the van is being used for a business, so there is loss of earnings there.

 

Might be worth calling a main Mazda dealer, and ask about the standard workshop times, for a better idea of the total time to repair the vehicle. I think trading standards would be interested in this one.

 

 

 

 

Well if you had read ALL of the thread you would know what the van had failed MOT on,witch makes your post somewhat irrelevant.

 

How big is a "tin" of fluid?........

 

 

Your reference to "Standard times" may be very helpful but only when the truth the whole truth and nothing but........comes out.

 

Jo, how about copy and past the letter complete in to this thread?,are there any others?

[ukaviator]

Ohhh Hostility towards me .. .

 

I stated above that i had'nt read all of the thread. The reason i came here in the first place was because of a complaint.

 

As i have had experience in the trade, after i left school, it thought a few more ideas may help get things sorted.

 

The standard times would be helpful to the owner, especially when trading standards may get involved.

 

Brake fluid sizes i have seen are between 250ml to 5 litres. . Maybe they did use 4 tins. .

 

The seat belt stalk comment is not there to fuel the fire. If a mechanic has a seat belt stalk second hand, i would'nt want to use it. Why is it second hand, is what i would like to know.

 

Jo asked for help here, and i have given a few pointers. Sorry you think it's irrelevant to you, but it maybe good for others to see in the future.

[Guest nez69]

back again, standard times are only for guideline purposes and are not legally binding in any way. people can charge what they like as long as it is reasonable for the job in question. ( try getting quotes from builders for example).

 

is the seat belt stalk really an issue? and who supplied it, did the customer supply it from his donor van? (the one for the engine swop?)

 

does anyone know how long it takes to change front suspension bushes on these vans? maybe this is also some of the labour charged on this invoice?

 

can i ask conniff what experience you have as you seem very vague on some points?

 

these are just a few points that really need to be answered before we can all go diving in and certainly points that any court or other authority would want answers to.

 

please supply info so we can help, regards

[Conniff]

can i ask conniff what experience you have as you seem very vague on some points?

 

You certainly may ask. I owned and ran a garage for almost 40 years and have MEng(Hon) after my name.

 

Any vagueness is that the facts must be acertained before you enter into any negotiation and it would be wrong to say something that is taken as what might have occured. When the fact are known then we can progress to a conclusion.

It would be silly to claim on something and then loose that claim because the facts were incorrect, and only the OP can give the these details.