Am I legally entitled to an itemised invoice?

[upstream]

Hi all,

 

I'm new to this forum so please accept my apologies in advance if I'm posting this question in the wrong spot.

 

Just over four weeks ago, my wife's 75 (1.8 Club, auto) 52 plate had an issue where simultaneously the wipers stopped working, the electric windows would go up and down by themselves and the central locking / alarm stopped working.

 

We have a Tesco (standard) warranty so rang them and took the car to their approved garage (Black Country area, West Midlands).

 

Their initial diagnosis was that something called a BCU had failed and Tesco's advised that this was covered by the warranty. After getting a replacement one (four days later) and that not working they then sent the car to their auto electrician.

 

Five days later I was informed that the problems were all been resolved and were caused by multiple breaks in the wiring loom. The cost - £470!

 

That wouldn't seem all that bad except that Tesco's then advised me that their warranty - whilst it would have covered a BCU does not cover wiring so it'll all had to come out of my own pocket.

 

The total cost was £470 - No auto electrician's diagnostic report was available and the invoice (which is very light on detail and contains a number of spelling mistakes) explains that there was a charge of £105 for "parts". After settling the bill in full via debit card I asked what the "parts" were. I was told that someone would contact me later. The car is now working perfectly fine.

 

Eventually after a number of calls by me I got through to the manager and asked for an itemisation of the parts. He said "It is wiring" to which I asked him to provide itemisation as these "parts" may actualy be covered by the warranty so that I could claim against the policy. His response was that whenever they send a car to their auto electrician it is repaired but no itemisation is provided and that it would not happen in this instance either.

 

My personal suspicion is that the garage have tried to recoup their costs for a BCU (which it turned out wasn't needed) and the recoding of my original BCU (which was carried out by another contracted garage and again which was shown not to have been needed) by billing me by way of an inflated labour charge and parts.

 

Despite the fact that the garage was recommended to me by the Tesco warranty (they even booked the job with the garage) they have washed their hands of the matter.

 

My questions are;

1) Is there anything within the law that entitles me to an itemisation of the parts used ?(from what I have been told on a motoring forum £105 would have more than paid for an entire replacement wiring loom for the car).

 

2) As Tesco's booked the job with the garage and recommended them, can they simply walk away from this as clearly were it not for their recommendation I would not have chosen this repairer.

 

Any assistance or advice would be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Upstream.

 

Thanks,

 

Upstream.

[heliosuk]

Well for a start £105 for a loom replacement?? Whoever told you that is in cloud cukoo land. More like £1005. Not sure about entiltlement to an itemised bill either but would have thought so. I'm sure the legal bods will be along to clarify this point.

 

As regards point 2 I'd have thought they were but then all they did was book the appointment. Interesting this.

 

The root cause, well this is intereting as well as on the face of it I'd have gone for exactly the same. ( BCU is a body control unit). However, before condeming it I'd have looked at the similarities between failures which would have led me to wiring I'm sure.

 

Now most warranties from what I remember cover the loom but no way was this replaced. It's more likey connectors though how they get to £105 worth would be interesting. Possible but highly remote.

[sailor sam]

Hi there,

 

First of all, could you let us know what make of car we are talking about? My original thought is Rover but not everyone will know what a '75' is.

 

Your OP asks if you are entitled to an itemised invoice. The simple answer is yes. The invoice should show detail what work has been done and what parts have been replaced/used. However, in some instances where small components have been used (such as screws/connectors/wiring ect), these can be described as 'miscellaneous items' as it is not expected to list every single item individually so they may be shown as a 'pack' or similar. As for a wiring loom, well as helisouk says; they come as a 'complete' part and can vary in price considerably, but certainly cost a lot more than £105! Personally, I dont understand what they mean by 'multiple breaks' as this is highly unusual unless the car has been involved in an accident. Looms have been know to 'short out' under dash boards ect and in areas where they are prone to movement which can cause component failures which use the same fuse/circuit.

 

I'm assuming you checked all was well in the fuse/relay box first off? I think 'multiple wiring breaks' is a very unlikely cause. Have a look in your handbook under 'fuses' and see if these items which failed are on the same fuse.

[upstream]

Hi - sorry I should have clarified - Yes it is a Rover 75. I had checked the fuses myself initially and had ruled this out as the cause. One thing that I haven't checked yet (but will) is the battery as someone on a motoring forum suggested that if the battery was failing that this type of symptom can occur.

 

I will write to the garage however I would be really interested to find out whether there is any particular law that states my legal entitlement to an itemised invoice so that I can use this as leverage - otherwise I'm likely to get zero response from the garage which incidentally is a national franchise.

 

Thanks.

[Conniff]

It depends on it the bill/invoice is classed as a receipt. You are not entitled to any form of receipt, the seller of products does not have to give a receipt.

[upstream]

Ah...

 

Well in that case I may as well put this down to experience and ensure that I warn as many people as possible not to deal with this garage.

 

Thanks for clarifying the situation for me.

[sailor sam]

It depends on it the bill/invoice is classed as a receipt. You are not entitled to any form of receipt, the seller of products does not have to give a receipt.

 

Sorry Conniff but I disagree. If you buy/pay for something you ARE entitled to a receipt. Especially if the seller is VAT registered as would be the case here.

[Britainsworstdriver]

'Parts' are individual goods that you are entitled to a), a list of all parts fitted and b) the old parts unless they are exchange unit items.

 

As you have been charged for goods then you are totally within your rights to demand a precise list of the parts used.

[Conniff]

i would like to think so too Sam but unfortunately under the

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

 

In response to the FAQs, it says:

 

Do I have to produce a receipt to claim my rights?

 

No. In fact the trader doesn't have to give you a receipt in the first place so it would be unfair to say that you had to produce one

 

You don't have to just give up though upstream - you can ask them to show you where the repairs/replacements were done, and I think that is a resonable request.

Failure to give a receipt or to show you what was done/replaced would leave you in a good position to claim back all the money you paid, you would be entitled to know what you actually paid for.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Conniff

[upstream]

Hmmm...

 

Perhaps I should get myself a credit card instead of a debit one for use in the future. That way I could instruct my credit card company to refund my money, pay the garage the labour portion and then tell them that I will immediately pay the balance upon them supplying me with an itemised list of the parts that I was being charged for.

 

It's a tough one of course when you are at the garage to collect your car and it is still in their possession as if you dispute anything they still have your vehicle!

[Britainsworstdriver]

In that case you can still claim your money back via debit card (the bank will say you cannot, but you can) as you paid under duress if that is how you felt at the time - ie, pay up or you don't get your car back.

[Conniff]

There is not an automatic right to a refund under credit card or debit card. You make the request and the bank will check it out.

I would think that on receipt of the bank questionare, the garage would then issue a detailed receipt and then you can take it somewhere else and have it checked out that it was actually done.

 

Life is never that easy. But you have to see if from both angles. If you could just demand and be refunded, think of how that would leave the system open to abuse.

[Britainsworstdriver]

I agree. But if you have been charged for something - in this case 'parts' and the seller is refusing to say what it is you have paid for, then you would have a fairly high chance of getting a refund on that part of the charge at least. I doubt you could claim it all back as the work was indeed done. It is the fact they have charged you for goods but refuse to say what those goods are that the bank will not like.

[sailor sam]

i would like to think so too Sam but unfortunately under the

 

Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

 

In response to the FAQs, it says:

 

Do I have to produce a receipt to claim my rights?

 

No. In fact the trader doesn't have to give you a receipt in the first place so it would be unfair to say that you had to produce one

 

 

You surprise me. How would you be able to claim VAT back then without a receipt? I don't see how that can be legal.

[upstream]

Thank you for such detailled responses. I'd like to pose a few scenario's if I may...

 

Originally when I queried the labour charge the garage informed me that the auto electrician had to remove a number of panels on the car. If I were to ask them to show me, and based on their response thus far, I believe it likely that they would just say "under that panel there" and there wouldn't be any way for me to prove otherwise.

 

What I was hoping was that I could somehow force them to declare what the parts were. I could then do two things;

 

1)Check to ensure that the price charged to me is aligned with what would be considered reasonable generally

 

2)Check that the parts had indeed been supplied by having a different garage check by removing the panels and having a look.

 

I am curious though - If I did go down this route and found that I had been overcharged for the parts, are there any laws that can determine what a car service centre may charge - For example if a bit of wire cost them £10 is there any law to prevent them charging £100 for it? If not it may not be worth the potential aggravation however something within me really doesn't want to just let this drop after all - if they have ripped me off on the parts charge - what is there to say that they haven't also done so on the labour...?

[upstream]

I agree. But if you have been charged for something - in this case 'parts' and the seller is refusing to say what it is you have paid for, then you would have a fairly high chance of getting a refund on that part of the charge at least. I doubt you could claim it all back as the work was indeed done. It is the fact they have charged you for goods but refuse to say what those goods are that the bank will not like.

 

My concern here is that when I spoke to the garage the manager said the parts were "bits of wire". Could they then argue that they have told me exactly what the parts were and that therefore they have fulfilled their obligations to me?

[Conniff]

Lets get back to the warranty. Does it say anywhere, or is there something printed that could be interpreted as, saying this isn't covered or has the insurance company just decided to add this bit verbally. They can't make an interpretation or imply something isn't covered unless it says so or you were told when you bought the policy.

 

The time the garage had the car is consistant with your suggestion that they might say the dash has been removed and it's behind there or even to replace an engine loom.

 

Thinking about this further, they wouldn't remove the dash for 'maybe it's behind there'. I know that BT use a machine that they connect to the telephone wires and it will tell them exactly where the break is, but I wouldn't think this would be feasable in a car loom with so many different wires to check out.

 

There could have been a break on a connector but it's the excess bill that is throwing doubt into my mind.

 

I think you should push the supply an itemised bill or show you route. You should also get onto the insurance company and ask where it says that isn't covered.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Conniff

[upstream]

Lets get back to the warranty. Does it say anywhere, or is there something printed that could be interpreted as, saying this isn't covered or has the insurance company just decided to add this bit verbally. They can't make an interpretation or imply something isn't covered unless it says so or you were told when you bought the policy.

 

The time the garage had the car is consistant with your suggestion that they might say the dash has been removed and it's behind there or even to replace an engine loom.

 

Hi again - Something that got my mind going quite early on was the fact that they seemed to keep misdiagnosing the issue. In fact -around two hours before they told me that it was all fixed they rang to tell me that the key would need to be recoded. I questioned this and said "well - I have a spare which I can bring down, if that works then it demonstrates that no recoding is required". Next thing I know - it's all miraculously been fixed!

 

But I digress...

 

The warranty has a list of covered items and non - covered items. "wiring" is on the list of non - covered items however the non covered items list does not include such things as connectors, terminators etc etc and if these have been used within the repair (I expect they would have to have been somewhere) then I could go back to Tesco's and submit a claim against these items.

 

One other little thing that raised my suspicions is that when I started to ask about the parts bill the manager became somewhat defensive and said "Hey - I'm out of pocket too you know. I bought a BCU which cost £200 and now the supplier won't accept it back. It also cost me to have it coded to your car so I can't even sell it so I'm out of pocket by quite a lot. Who is going to pay for that - no one".

 

This, coupled with the lack of detail on the invoice leads me to believe that they misdiagnosed the car, incurred a number of costs as a result of these and then set about trying to recoup these costs through an inflated bill.

[Conniff]

That's not digression, that is a big clue that all is not right here. He would also not be out of pocket. I only purchased these type of parts on a sale or return and I can't see him buying a part without the same clause or at least confirming this was it before he purchased. No competent person would buy on a whim that it might be that. Or if they did, they would have fitted it and said the wiring shorted and damaged it and then fit it and sell that to you as well.

I'm not sure what he means by having it coded to your car either. That means there will be an eprom in there and that can be wiped and reprogrammed, just like the bios in your computer.

[patdavies]

You surprise me. How would you be able to claim VAT back then without a receipt? I don't see how that can be legal.

 

A VAT registered entity is required to supply a VAT invoice detailing the suppliers registration number and the rate of VAT charged (or a separate amount for VAT) amongst other things.

[Britainsworstdriver]

Correct. A bill of £117.50 could be itemised as:

 

Work/Parts £100.00

VAT £ 17.50

Total £ 117.50

 

Vat number: 123 45 6789

 

On the question of 'wires' costing £105.00, that seems highly suspect to me. It is an unreasonable charge for the actual item. They can charge what they like, but did they at any point ask you if it is ok to charge for wire at the rate of £1000 per metre?

 

This lot would have been better charging £1000 for the work and £10 for the wire, that would have been a reasonable cost for the wire.

 

The bottom line is that a few lengths of wire cut from a reel, do not constitue parts as such. As far as a car goes, parts would be tangable itmes like screws, bolts, washers, pumps, fuses, ECU's etc etc. Wire???? No, I don't think as such. Sundry items perhaps. £105 for some wire seems odd to me. Their flat refusal to tell you in writing what the part is seems highly dubious.

 

I would ask for a detailed written account of what they did and how the costs are broken down exactly, itemising parts. Put this in writing and give them 14 days to reply. If they refuse then issue them a notice before action letter and take them to county court for your 'parts' charges.

[heliosuk]

The bottom line is that a few lengths of wire cut from a reel, do not constitue parts as such. As far as a car goes, parts would be tangable itmes like screws, bolts, washers, pumps, fuses, ECU's etc etc. Wire???? .

 

Sorry that's not correct. Wire is a tangible item usually under a part number and qty is per meter.

 

But, to be charged £105......well that's quite a bit of wire!!

 

Smaller garages and freelance electricians generally put screws, bolts, washers, a squirt of oil, a smear of grease, fuses etc as consumables and is a charged levied across nearly all repairs irrespective of whether used or not.

 

The crux here is whether or not the issue is warrantable or not warrantable. The garage says no but the justification is very weak.

[upstream]

It's a tricky one. I'd definately want justice and would like to pursue it however the last thing I'd want is to (for example) take them to court and then somehow they counter claim for something, win and I end up having to pay them even more than I already have.

 

this is the concern that comes out of an ignorance of the legal system I suppose.

[sailor sam]

A VAT registered entity is required to supply a VAT invoice detailing the suppliers registration number and the rate of VAT charged (or a separate amount for VAT) amongst other things.

 

Thats what I thought but according to Conniff's snip from Salse of Goods act 1979, it apparently states 'the trader does not have to provide a receipt'.

[heliosuk]

OK.

 

The Rover 75 was developed in conjunction with and perhaps by BMW. Now BMW has design specs which dictate where it is to be mounted, what it does etc so essentially is the same unit across the board only with different software loaded into the EPROM. But each of these units is coded to the car and keys as it leaves the line.

 

Now, in the early days of these being fitted, they were mounted usually in the plenum chamber (not a particularly wise move) or inside.alongside the A pillar and they suffered terrible problems with water ingress.

 

This is what I think may have happened. However they might well have changed the BCU but of course then found out the connector into it was corroded as well. But this connector can have some 96 pins into it.

 

So my bet as to what has happened is that they did in fact change the BCU and recovered the cost from the warranty as covered under the policy. Then the conector pins need changing. It's very possible the corrosion led to the electrician having to splice in an additional 96 wires to make the pin repair good. So we have the wire and pins plus the solder, heat shrink insulation and his time and I thinks it's very possible the bill is correct. On reflection, if I was to do the job then I don't think I'd be too far adrift in terms of parts and labour if I controlled my stock of connectors.

 

One way of proving it would be to ask Tesco what they paid out and what for.

 

What does anyone else think?