Halfords overfilled engine oil then bodged repair then denied liability! Legal action starting! HELP needed!**SUCCESS**

[Brownguy53]

The Customer service thread was helpful too bankfodder thanks for that. The funny thing is I had audio recorder before..but just got the ios call recorder for 0.99 USD was something like 70p and worth it, just did a test call and amazing quality. Doesn't make my phone freeze too. So now if Halfords try and call me which I don't know why but i have a real gut feeling they will about this inspection letter it will be all recorded. I agree totally with the thread its well worth having these apps! I just use the iPhone's natural voice recorder too to record things in stores and stuff and its amazing how much it picks up tbh! Anyway thanks for the help and let's see what happens next.

[Brownguy53]

Bankfodder while I'm waiting for the reply to that am looking into mitigating my losses and maximising where i can faily..but for my claim for the period I am now without transport.. could i buy a cheap car as alternative transport? i've seen one for £1150 and I read that in past cases you could claim for loss of value if when you sold the cheap car you only received £200 for example but you paid £500. Your loss would be £300. I just wondered if this would be a better option really as the cost of taxis is going to be in the £1000's region because where I live its £12 to the city alone and the return £24. And car hire is £200 deposit and £125 a week..just wanted your opinion

[Brownguy53]

Have now got photos+videos of my car locked in Halfords to prove the fact it has not been returned and is not being returned to me.

Letter was posted regarding inspection and signed for today..had no response but wil await the 7 days

[Brownguy53]

I today have got a response to the inspection letter which is below:

 

We write further to your correspondence dated 31st January 2015 and received today by recorded delivery. We note your request that you wish to arrange an independent inspection of your vehicle.

 

We would of course confirm that you are absolutely within your rights to to arrange for said inspection. We would also seek to remind you that as we have rejected this claim and the vehicle remains your property, that we now require the removal of this car from our Nottingham Arnold Autocentre as a priority, or storage charges will become payable.

 

The Autocentre charge a daily rate of £15 per day which will commence from Friday at 5.00pm and we would ask that arrangements are put in place to facilitate the removal of your car as a priority.

 

We note we await service of your small claims court paperwork in this regard from your legal representative.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Halfords Customer Services

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please consider whether it is necessary to print this email.

 

Any opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual and not necessarily of Halfords Group plc and/or any of its subsidiaries.

[BankFodder]

Okay, I think that you should start to move this on as quickly as possible. To reduce any complicating factors, you would be best off getting the car out of there. If it costs you any money then you can claim it back from Halfords in the court claim.

 

You need to get the inspections underway and then issue your claim. Halford's have had lots of chance and lots of expertise to conduct an inspection if they want. Presumably they haven't done so – but it's up to them.

 

I really do think that you need to get this moving because otherwise you're going to be ending up in another dispute with Halford's as to who pays for the car – etc.

 

There is even a risk that if you leave the car there at some point they will consider that they are entitled to dispose of it and then you will lose access to your evidence. – Although if they wanted to dispose of it they would have to give you reasonable notice etc.

[Conniff]

It's only been a week or so they were refusing access to the car.

[Brownguy53]

Hi yes totally agree. I arranged for a local garage in Nottingham (where the autocentre is) to tow the truck. But apparently they rang the autocentre to check if signatures were required to take the vehicle and Halfords were trying to put them off towing the car saying that 'they only filled a litre in the vehicle' and theyve 'rejected the claim' and that apparently no repairs ever been done on the vehicle, which contradicts orginally what I was told was done a 'repair' and the investigation letter. But anyway the mechanic rang me back and said he'll do the independent inspection tommorrow and he's going with a tow truck tommorow to get the vehicle as I explained that Halfords are lieing to get out of liability, so as far as I'm concerned the 3rd independent quote now will be done and towing truck costs are now on this matter and costing me. I have had to pay seperately to get the car towed because my breakdown cover said my policy only covers 'home' to 'garage' not 'garage' to 'garage' and am told the cost will be £50-60. I as prior mentioned now bought call recorder the iPhone app, so all these calls are recorded including the mechanic's conversation/breakdown cover saying they don't cover this towing..so in my eyes its further evidence but i feel also costs inflicted by Halford's negligence.

I just am angry they have made such comments to the mechanic as it was embarrassing to me, I do not know why they are so against an independent inspection unless it's going to reveal something further?

But am going to ask the mechanic tommorrow to put in writing his conversation with Halfords and findings now after looking at the vehicle.

 

I am going to start the POC now..do you think this is ok?

 

1. The claimant visited one of the defendants stores in X to purchase engine oil and their oil top up service.

2. The work topping up the oil was carried out negligently thus consequently substantial damage was caused to the claimant's car.

3. Claimant immediately returned to defendants store seeking repair of vehicle. Defendant admitted liability and promised repair/reimbursement in audio recording. Defendant conducted repair 6 days later but repair was again negligently carried out which caused further significant damage to claimant’s vehicle.

4. The claimant's car damage was caused by defendant's negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982.

5. Claimant seeks reimbursement of all costs incurred due to defendants negliglence.

6. Claimant has spent at least 185 hours trying to deal resolve with defendant.

 

7. Total - £X

 

8. Interest Pursuant to section 69 County Courts act 1984

[Brownguy53]

It's only been a week or so they were refusing access to the car.

 

What was your point with this?

[king12345]

On point 2 I would explain why the oil top up was done negligently.

Use the word "overfilled" or better "filled over the manufacturer recommended level".

Sorry to say, but this repair is going to be costly: overfilling engine oil is the worst single thing you can do to a modern-ish car.

But I'm sure you'll get the money back from Halfords eventually.

[Conniff]

What was your point with this?

 

 

Threatening storage charges a week after refusing access, they can't have it both ways.

 

 

I haven't seen 'professional negligence' talked about. Halfords have represented themselves as having more than the average skills and abilities and they owe you, the customer, a duty of care and are in breach of that duty.

[Brownguy53]

Hi thanks for the advice King..I'll change that then..

[Brownguy53]

Threatening storage charges a week after refusing access, they can't have it both ways.

 

 

I haven't seen 'professional negligence' talked about. Halfords have represented themselves as having more than the average skills and abilities and they owe you, the customer, a duty of care and are in breach of that duty.

 

Yes thats right indeed. And yes your right. It seems a bit like I sent that inspection letter and they were like 'oh crap' we forgot to tell the customer to get his car and we were trying to keep it so that we could keep this one on the lid. The wording of their letters is very clever..it always seems to be a maybe answer never a yes or no, just implications.

 

 

But anyway spoke to the mechanic again today and he said he's getting the car this morning and not to worry he will do an independent inspection and he didn't manage to get it today so I shall rang about 2pm as hopefully he has it by then.

 

 

What's annonying me about it all is they've really tried to mess with my head by turning people like mechanics against me and spreading lies..One thing am not is a liar and I don't like for them to imply I am one. I would never damage my own car on Christmas Eve its just not logical..and they seem to think because they are 'Halfords' that I should be scared of them but sadly am not someone who will let a principle matter like this go..they damaged my car they're staff are incompetent and not correctly trained and now they want to deny liability!...

 

 

They keep putting in letters oh we await your legal assistance, i genuinely have had solicitors and still do who will take on the case! But i don't see why I should give up 35% to a solicitor when I'm a independent invididual.

 

 

Because of it all in the meanwhile I've had to buy a cheap runaround temporary car because car hire was quoted at £600 for a month and they wanted a £300 security deposit..then if the car even got a chip from anyone I would have to pay £1000 upfront.

 

I don't see why because of Halford's error I should be put at that risk with a temp car.. and buses/taxis/trains were just adding up to to too much as well because I live 12 miles away from my local town centre and they're isnt any bus lines/routes near me.. so I've mitigated my losses by doing the cheapest thing which was to buy a temporary replacement car which I will sell when this case is done at court.

Edited February 6, 2015 by citizenB
formatted for easier reading

[Brownguy53]

On point 2 I would explain why the oil top up was done negligently.

Use the word "overfilled" or better "filled over the manufacturer recommended level".

Sorry to say, but this repair is going to be costly: overfilling engine oil is the worst single thing you can do to a modern-ish car.

But I'm sure you'll get the money back from Halfords eventually.

 

Have changed..is this ok for the POC?

 

1. The claimant visited one of the defendants stores in X to purchase engine oil and their oil top up service.

2. The work topping up the oil was carried out negligently by filling over the manufacturer recommended level thus consequently substantial damage was caused to the claimant's car.

3. Claimant immediately returned to defendants store seeking repair of vehicle. Defendant admitted liability and promised repair/reimbursement in audio recording. Defendant conducted repair 6 days later but repair was again negligently carried out which caused further significant damage to claimant’s vehicle.

4. The claimant's car damage was caused by defendant's negligence and breach of statutory duty under the Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982.

5. Claimant seeks reimbursement of all costs incurred due to defendants negliglence.

6. Claimant has spent at least 185 hours trying to deal resolve with defendant.

 

7. Total - £X

 

8. Interest Pursuant to section 69 County Courts act 1984

[Brownguy53]

Update: Garage now have car and are conducting independent inspection.

[Brownguy53]

Hey guys I thought to update everyone so that I can assist other people that this may happen to or are in similar cases. Well I decided the next step was court action as unfortunately any terms of agreement failed and after being threatened with storage charges for MY car they never notified me I could pick up and refused access to pick up I was left with a towing fee as my breakdown cover would only cover 'home to home' or 'road to home' towing not 'garage to garage' towing.

The garage mechanics opinion was that the car was a write off as the component it needed which was the catalytic convert was £800-1000. On top of this there would be the labour charges so i was told that I'd be looking at £1400-1500. It also to go with the catalytic converter neede 4 02 sensors which added to the cost. Also because of Halford's autocentres negligence they had left the car stood as halfords has not moved it or started it for over a month or two months by the mechanics opinion , that meant other parts of the car had seized and now needed replacing. This also added to the bill and meant to car was without a doubt beyond economic repair. I've thus now been forced to SORN the vehicle and cut my losses with it.

The state of the car returned to me was disgusting- with my CDs being smashed on the floor and cracked and paperwork thrown all over from my glove compartment. Therefore I took photographs of this but believe it shows their unprofessionalism and lack of ethics.

So considering my circumstances I went for a fee remission. It took me 2-3 months to get this filed as it required alot of paperwork and for the courts to do alot of checks ie: bank statements. But on April 16th the court issued a notice of issue to Halfords.

They filed a response on the 23rd April saying that they will fully defend the case and they have also filed a change of legal representative- they will be using 'Foot Anstey' solicitors to defend their case.

 

I don't know if I can upload the docs sent to me from Halfords solicitors with any data blanked out but any help with the next stage/s would be appreciated.

[Brownguy53]

I've just double checked and been reading around and it seems as such what Halfords have actually filed is not a defence to me..but an 'acknowledgement' and 'notices of legal change' along with a form saying they will defend which was filed on 24/4/15. So I guess I have to await the defence?

[BankFodder]

Yes, that's right. You simply wait for the defence.

 

They have 28 days from the date that your claim was served on them to file a defence.

 

I understand that they are instructing a proper firm of lawyers to deal with the case. Hopefully that will mean that you will finally get some professional treatment on this and the lawyers will start to appreciate that Halfords don't have a leg to stand on.

 

We will continue to help you as we have done in the past.

 

In other words we will advise you as best we can and give you all the support that we can. However, as has always been the situation – and as I have explained to on the phone, this is your case and the final final decisions which have to be taken are yours alone.

 

However, we are there for you to support you against well resourced companies who seem to have little regard for their customers.

 

You are doing very well so far. With all the photographic and video evidence that you have accumulated – you have a really excellent chance and frankly Halfords would be better off trying to reach a settlement with you than expose themselves to a court judgement and the humiliation that that will bring.

 

Frankly I am surprised Halfords. We get very few complaints on this forum about them and although they are not in the same league as John Lewis, I had thought that they were really pretty good.

 

Clearly they've taken their eye off the ball.

 

We have just received very interesting message from Halfords in which someone who describes themselves as a "claims consultant" has threatened to sue us in the courts if we continue to give you any advice or any help in bringing your case against them.

 

I don't know what Halfords are smoking – but it must be pretty bad stuff and I certainly don't want any of it.

 

Don't worry, we are behind you – and these kind of threats simply harden our resolve.

 

Please see my update on this message in a post below.

Edited April 28, 2015 by BankFodder
Update on spoof message

[Brownguy53]

Wow really? Oh my god. I can't believe that Halfords have done that with a message! That's pretty low and digusting. Well if you guys don't want to help me I would totally understand but I thank you that you are ...as your help has been good to me and I think after this case I would be confident to do the small claims court route again!!.. (god forbid I should ever need to by myself. )

 

I think that it is 'scare tactics' of them to use a big solicitor firm and to try and shut me down, although I note this is their normal partner legal firm from some research but they have 3 to choose from and theyve chosen the top firm out of all 3....so getting any help does help me..I guess they've probably sent you a message as I guess that means they're watching this thread which I already assumed when I posted it back in January so no big suprise to me. Most people today are scared of big companies like Halfords and as a wise man once told me I think they truly thought I was a 'windbag' for a while. I suppose as 2 months went by I fell into their 'wingbag' category they guessed..and they believed I hadn't decided to take them to court or chickened out.. but it was just sorting out the fee remission that took me a while. I'm happy its sorted now through very happy.

 

At the end of the day for me it's not even about the money anymore it's about the MORALE of it and the principle of proving I did nothing wrong and am not a liar. They broke my car by their negligence and then showed a lack of care and got staff to change witnesses statements and COVER IT UP!! If they didn't at head office then it was definetely a branch cover up! They should sack the people involved and fix my car to a adequate standard it was before and if they can't do that they should allow me to get someone who can. I'm going to give them the option of mediation on the directions form, if they take it thats their choice.

 

The notice of issue was filed on 15th April 2015 as I have just checked, so they have 28 days from this date? May 25th/26th then To serve the defence?

And thank you Bankfodder! I have lots of video, photos and even new evidence..I need a folder for it all now and to organise it.

I'll let you all know when i get their defence! Am I right that if they don't file it I can serve judgement ?

[citizenB]

Brownguy - if the date of issue was 15th April, then they have 33 days from then to submit a defence (that includes the time for service which is 5 days).

 

So the timeline would be ... Date of issue 15.04.2015 + 5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge the claim + 14 days to submit a defence. = 17.05.2015

 

And yes, if they don't file a defence by 17th May 2015 you can ask for Judgment by default.

[Brownguy53]

Brownguy - if the date of issue was 15th April, then they have 33 days from then to submit a defence (that includes the time for service which is 5 days).

 

So the timeline would be ... Date of issue 15.04.2015 + 5 days for service + 14 days to acknowledge the claim + 14 days to submit a defence. = 17.05.2015

 

And yes, if they don't file a defence by 17th May 2015 you can ask for Judgment by default.

 

Oh ok! I see. I assumed they didn't include weekends and looked at how the courts gave them 2 weeks to respond and didn't include weekends so i did the same. Yes definetely on notice of issue says 'issued on 15th april' so thanks for that. Thank you citizen! Well that date works out perfect for me so great!

[SabreSheep]

Watching thread out of interest.

 

[andydd]

Interesting case

[BankFodder]

I'm sure that they will put in a defence so don't be disappointed

[Brownguy53]

I'm sure that they will put in a defence so don't be disappointed

 

 

Oh yeah am sure they will too. I think it'll be the same story..we have 3 staff witness statements etc etc..i can't see them saying much more. But hey I'll be ready for whatever they bring. I have my evidence

[Brownguy53]

It will be interesting to see how they- Halfords solicitors downplay admitted liability on recorded covert audio from their own staff at the time of the incident in their defence! Before they kept yapping onto me saying their legal team said recording someone without their permission is illegal and i woudnn't be able to use it in court so it'll be interesting to see if theyr'e solictors try and downplay that too. As you said before Bankfodder it's aload of rubbish..I think that when you deal with organisations such as halfords in customer service wether or not you record them shouldn't matter, they should be doing a job with a duty of care and reason so they should have no objection to recorded audio of their staff covertly. It's like you said prior to me on the phone Bankfodder they've been backed into a corner and don't like it....well they have some work to do yet..because they haven't seen a thing yet!!! Oh and to the covert Halfords staff Hello !