Help needed

[whipsey]

I am currently running a small local garage and have a problem i took a customers car for an mot approx two weeks ago the car failed the mot and i rectified the problems and got the car to pass a few days later.

 

A week passed and was paid a visit by the owner after a wheel bearing had failed on the car that i had previously tightened to remove the play in it.

 

The car was already at another garage and was authorised to have the repairs done there by the customer i am now being expected to foot the £435 bill even though i was given no opportunity to rectify the problems myself.

 

Because the customer was just leaving to go on holiday same day i let them borrow a car so that they could continue to go away. Am i right in thinking that i should of had the opportunity to repair the car myself

[MARTIN3030]

First of all,was the original failure due to wheel bearing excess play which you rectified ?

Am I right in thinking that the customer came to you for a pre mot inspection,then you took it to someone you deal with for the test ?

 

Was the customer charged for your work to rectify the failure problems for the MOT ?

If so did you itemise the work on an invoice to them ?

 

It is reasonable to suppose that you should have been given opportunity to rectify the problems,if of course they were associated to work that you had already done.

The burden of proof is on them to prove that you was negligent or responsible anyway.

 

As you know an MOT is no proof that a car is roadworthy,and a component can fail anytime.

 

You acted in good faith in lending them a car too.

If this were to go to Court then it would obv rely on you being liable and responsible.

 

Since you was not given any opp to correct the problems it could go in your favour.

 

They would have to show very good reasons why they did not contact you.Just my thoughts.

[whipsey]

original failure was on the wheel bearing having excess play which i tightened and it passed the mot no problems i actually agreed with the customer over the phone to try to tighten it rather than replace them to save them the extra labour charge.

 

I've got my suspicions that the car that they borrowed will be held until i pay the outstanding garage bill. The annoying thing is if the car came back to me first they would of had no charge at all for any repairs done to the car.

 

I'm prepared to pay them the cost for replacement parts as a goodwill gesture but don't really want to be paying out for labour when i wasn't given the opportunity to rectify it

[MARTIN3030]

I totally agree.

Have you not had anything from them in writing then ?

You cant really do much until you get the car back and hear their demands.

But the longer they keep your car without contacting you-then I would say the more in your favour this is.

 

Its important that you get them to put any complaint to you in writing-so that you have some record if push comes to the shove.

 

In the meantime you could perhaps force the issue by writing to THEM .

Outline your targets for resolution and ask for a response by 7 days in writing.

 

It looks like it may be in your favour to take the initiative.

£435 for a wheel bearing seems over the top-even a front one where the spring and strut has to come off.

I am time served Audi VW.

For £435 you could prob get both sides done on a Golf with a set of discs and pads !!!

[whipsey]

the price was for both rear wheel bearings rear shoes stub axle and a backplate from what i'm aware as when the bearing failed the wheel came off the car

[Conniff]

I would want full proof of this and in writing. Do you know who towed him in and the name of the garage fixing it?

[whipsey]

i know the other garage as i use them regularly for recoverys i passed on the customers number when they phoned me to say the tyre had come off the car while driving

[Guest nez69]

the price was for both rear wheel bearings rear shoes stub axle and a backplate from what i'm aware as when the bearing failed the wheel came off the car

 

If this happened then I feel you are lucky they are not seeking legal action against you.

 

You are responsible as a professional garage to inform the customer of the faults or issues on their car and to provide a professional and SAFE repair and a price you charge to do this.

 

Did you make the customer aware this was only a temporary repair?

 

If not then pay up, apologise and count your blessings noone got hurt and you are not in court.

 

(imi member and trade professional)

[heliosuk]

If this happened then I feel you are lucky they are not seeking legal action against you.

 

You are responsible as a professional garage to inform the customer of the faults or issues on their car and to provide a professional and SAFE repair and a price you charge to do this.

 

Did you make the customer aware this was only a temporary repair?

 

If not then pay up, apologise and count your blessings noone got hurt and you are not in court.

 

(imi member and trade professional)

YEAH GODS!!

 

I don't believe I'm reading this.

 

I've read some of your posts and often can be quite controversal with my opinions but if your a professional then I'm glad I didnt take up the invite to join them.

 

P.S.

 

C.Eng, Ba, BSc. Cadburys DM and Bar.

[Boro]

Glad im not the only one heliosuk

[Guest nez69]

Only contoversal because there are too many people without the relevant experience trying to advise on things that they clearly do not know enough about.

 

It is all well and good that you may think that the book you have read makes you an expert or that you have so much time on your hands you can look up all the answers online but us in the real world that actually fully understand how this trade works have some quite valuable information.

 

I do not claim to be god, but I do know what I am talking about, otherwise I would not share it with others.

 

How many of you lot can say the same?

 

look at the SOGA post.

 

I thought this forum was here to help people, not a place for amateurs to rant????!!!!

 

Makes you think a lot about leaving the forum.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

Now please, I am not here to cause arguements but to offer some REAL LIFE advice and help.

 

People do not follow all the rules and regulations in the real world, that is why those that do charge for it.

 

You pay for what you get. Maybe that's why this site is free eh.

 

So when Boro and Heliosuk need help I am sure you will only get the correct information eh.

 

You have no idea who or what I am and you certainly have no authority to judge me.

 

If anyone actually wants help that works then you know where I am, if not then good luck with this lot and, oh, good luck winning your battles lol.

[Guest nez69]

P.S.

 

C.Eng, Ba, BSc. Cadburys DM and Bar.

 

 

 

 

This just say's it all and sums you up totally I feel.

 

Everyone who is taking this persons advice heed this mockery and realise that this person really does know what he is talking about...................................................................NOT!

[Conniff]

there are too many people without the relevant experience trying to advise on things that they clearly do not know enough about.

 

And who are these people??

[Guest nez69]

And who are these people??

 

Usually the one's who like to question the one's making good comments and advice.

 

Do not treat me like I do not know what I am talking about.

 

I speak out relating to personal experiences as well as the vast knowledge I have of the motor industry.

 

I have been around and I know how this trade ticks and breathes.

[Boro]

I beg to differ, i am a time served mechanic and feel your first contribution to this thread fails to pick up on a few key points as to why what the op did was acceptable and as to why when adjusting the bearing there may have been no evidence that his actions would cause it to fail

[Guest nez69]

I beg to differ, i am a time served mechanic and feel your first contribution to this thread fails to pick up on a few key points as to why what the op did was acceptable and as to why when adjusting the bearing there may have been no evidence that his actions would cause it to fail

 

This repair is fine as long as the customer is aware that it is only temporary!

 

If they were not then you are liable.

 

The customer obviously has no faith in the garage who did the MOT otherwise they would have gone back there.

 

If my wheel fell off I would be straight on to the garage who had just worked on that wheel!

 

It is not rocket science but there is obviously an issue there.

[whipsey]

thought i better add to this before it turns into a complete slanging match the customer was made fully aware that it would only be a temporary repair and they fully understood this when told they agreed on having them nipped up to save themselves some money in the short term. And on another note the mot was done at a seperate garage who i use regulary and trust to do a good job.

 

The issue i had was that the customer agreed to have the car worked elsewhere with the recovery firm i arranged to collect the car and then expected me to foot the full bill.

 

This has been fully settled now after i agreed with the customer to pay for the parts prices that i would of replaced if it had been brought back to me to rectify the problem in the first instance.

 

So just to confirm

yes a problem occured

yes i arranged and paid for recovery

yes i arranged a car for them to continue their trip away

yes i stumped up the cash to replace any damaged items

 

 

and just to note i am also imi accredited

i was apprentice trained by a race mechanic

[Guest nez69]

I am glad this has all worked out well for you.

 

I still think you were very lucky.

 

If the worst had of happened, well.

 

Well done.

[scaniaman]

I'm not quite getting something here. A slack wheel bearing is no big deal and any half competent grease monkey can adjust it to a reasonable end float tolerance. Was the slackness really excessive, in which case a strip down is required to examine any damage/excessive wear, which usually requires replacement bearings. Or was one of these contraptions with no end float--just tighten it up? In this case a roughness should have been apparent if bearing US. It looks like Whipsey was doing the owner a favour by doing a temporary repair---but experience has shown this is what you get for trying to help some people.

As for Nez69, you sound like the modern brigade (in all sectors) who's main consideration is "cover my own back" and to hell with the cost to the customer. This attitude is OK for the high earners in society but not for the many on lower incomes who can't afford todays grossly inflated car repair prices.

I am not a member of any fancy trade outfit, just a grease monkey who spent most of his life repairing the full range of vehicles from small cars right through to 40ton HGV's, with a very high MOT pass rate. All this on a very tight budget. Where patch ups were done to keep cost down, the customer was told and accepted this, they had to accept responsibility if things went wrong. My old man would not have customers vehicles in the garage for weeks awaiting new parts--he either repaired the faulty part or in extreme cases made a part that would get the motor back on the road.

At one time our store was full of repair parts for electrics and clutch/brake components. A true motor ENGINEER and not greedy for money.

[Conniff]

The difference now, of course, scania is the basic costs incured before you can even fill the petty cash let alone call it profit. The business rates, rent, gas, water, electricity and insurance all have to come out before you can hope to calculate any drawings. And if you are past your first year, then there is also the HMRC and accountancy fees.

You were also respected and trusted by customers and if they had a problem with your work, they would come back for rectification.

 

And if it is a lease, you are more than likely responsible for the building upkeep and repairs as well.

[scaniaman]

Agreed Conniff. But the only Extra cost today is computers and software to diagnose modern automotive systems. We always did have to pay the charges that you mention.

We used to run Volvo 240's because we heard of their great reliability. It was not until we bought the service manual that we discovered why they were so reliable---many components renewed as a matter of normal service routine. (nez69). We contended that if any vehicle was subjected to this level of replacement parts, they too would be most reliable.

[Hammy1962]

Usually the one's who like to question the one's making good comments and advice.

 

Do not treat me like I do not know what I am talking about.

 

I speak out relating to personal experiences as well as the vast knowledge I have of the motor industry.

 

I have been around and I know how this trade ticks and breathes.

 

Ooooh Er, Heliosuk, looks like we've got a bit of competition. I don't know how old Heliosuk is but your user-name suggests you were born '69. Which makes my vast experience of the Motor Trade more vast than yours. Heliosuk knows more than he should about Chassis Engineering and Conniff, well he's been around so long he almost remembers steam, only joking Conniff, you know I mean well!!

 

So, don't come on here throwing your qualifications around because there are many folk who know much more than you, in the case of Heliosuk and me, more qualifications too. You proved this by those ridiculous comments you made earlier

 

You have to earn respect on here and with 68 posts, your not the're yet baby.

 

Hammy

Edited June 4, 2010 by Hammy1962

[scaniaman]

Big apology for hi-jacking your thread Whipsey---maybe Admin will move this one.

Have read Nez69,s posts re qualifications and experience in the trade, so here is my query to Mr. Nez.

Had a Citroen Picasso 1.6hdi 110bhp for 3.5yrs and got good mpg. (51.4mpg most common over this period) range 49-55mpg.

Got new one in Nov 2008, supposed to be same spec, but can't get the target 50+mpg over the same journeys. All things are equal.

Only difference is new car has FAP which Citroen EVENTUALLY told me would account for fuel increase of around 3-4%,but this car is more than 10% heavier on fuel. Any idea why? Arnold Shark and Citroen say nothing wrong with car---the computer says so!!!!!!!!