 | |
Re: Escalating garage costs...what can I do?
Cars Maintenance General car maintenance (uk.rec.cars.maintenance)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
 
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
Re: Escalating garage costs...what can I do? -
05-15-2007
, 03:52 PM
|
this is my first time posting to either of these forums... apologies for the long rambling rant..... but I'm looking for some advice if anyone can offer it :-) my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) |
Quote:
|
6 months ago this happened, and it turned out the car needed a new ignition switch. 133 quid (2 and a bit hours labour and part cost) 6 months later... the same thing has happened again... Id put up with it for about a month.. but eventually the things just given up on me again... so needed to call the RAC out, who got the thing fired up and I drove it back to garage. I checked my original receipt to see if the work was guaranteed, and according to the receipt there is a "12 month guarantee on workmanship". As it happened my car also needed its MOT done, so I returned it to the original garage, for both what I presumed would be a repair under guarantee and the MOT. On speaking to the garage, they agreed the ignition switch had indeed failed again, and they had established that it was due to excessive current coming from the starter motor, which would need replacing. Grand total for both being replaced, 320 quid (!) I enquired that the very same problem had happened before, which seemed more than mere coincidence and presumably this would be covered under the guarantee. |
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. |
Quote:
|
I think they also admitted that the excess current issue wasnt something they would have checked anyway. Hmmm... well the former sounds a bit suspect, as Ive been experiencing the problem for about a month before its packed up again now... and the latter suggests, why didnt they look for this excess current problem the first time, if theyve done so this time? By now of course my car is in something of a dismantled state, they have no doubt spent several highly chargable hours of labour getting it to this state, so I didnt really feel I could tell them to bugger off and end up being given back a car in an undrivable/unworking state |
trailer for the removal? Where else would you have taken it?
Quote:
|
and a demand for payment for time spent so far. So I said.. ok.. go ahead and replace the starter motor... I figured I could knock them down on the cost of the new ignition switch + labour later. Anyway.. the car has now gone through its MOT, and failed it, and a whole range of further problems have shown up... I asked them to get back to me with a quote for what it would cost to fix all these and the price quoted is 660 quid (!) I asked what the bill would be if I were to have the car back with no further work done, in its un-MOTed state, and the bill drops to a mere(!) 450 quid for the work thats been done on it so far(!). Rather annoying as this has jumped from the earlier figure of £320, as apparently the mechanic had taken it upon himself to commence work on the brakes which was one of the reasons it failed the MOT. Of course I was told he had to dismantle the wheels/brakes etc first in order to establish what the problem was..... hmmmmm |
establish what the problem is.
Quote:
|
You could say Im between a rock and a hard place here... especially as the vehicle itself is probably worth less than a grand. |
Quote:
|
Im tempted to walk in, and say "Im not going to pay such an outrageous bill, what are you going to do about it". Im curious to know what they could do about it? Obviously they could keep my vehicle... but if the final bill and the value of the car isnt much different, I dont have much to lose. What would happen then? do they have any legal right to hold onto the vehicle.. sell it, etc? |
Quote:
|
I do feel they should have put the vehicle through its MOT first before doing anything - even though obviously it was going to fail, and let me know a quote for all the things that needed doing so that I could decide if it was worth it... rather than doing bits here and there and leaving me with an intial high bill. |
fail" - why "obviously"? Are you suggesting that you were knowingly
driving around with brakes that you knew were inadequate? Did you tell
them of these other MOT-fail problems you knew of?
Quote:
|
Is there some code of conduct that garages should really be able to give you a quote without excessive intiial labour charges? If as I suspect will happen, I have to bite the bullet and pay this exhorbitant bill, I will never ever be taking any business back there again.. and I will be advising any family and friends and work colleagues to do the same... I figure this is really the only way in the long run I can really "hurt" them finanically to the same level they are charging me. |
You took your car to them, with known faults, and said "Please fix, and
MOT".
They spent time investigating, and said "This is the problem, cost £X to
fix"
You said "Go ahead"
They did so, MOTd the car as you requested, and said "It's failed on Y -
we've spent some more investigating and it needs £Z spending. What do
you want to do?"
Quote:
|
A few other people have suggested I approach Trading Standards about this... not sure what if anything this might achieve.. apart from possibly officially registering a black mark/complaint against their name. Maybe everything they've done is entirely legal, and simply "sharp business practise" |
Quote:
|
Anyway... Ive grudgingly told them to get on with it then, as I dont feel I have any choice... and I will be having words with them, when I pick up the car sometime tomorrow or the day after.... if anyone has any advice before then, I would be glad to hear it. ps. you wouldnt believe this is a small local garage that our family has used for many years! |
your initial description. There may well, of course, be a bit more to
it.
#2
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever_pseudo... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) (Left in full, x-posted to uk.rec.cars.maintenance. Comments in-line.) |
it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed
apt.
Quote:
|
I checked my original receipt to see if the work was guaranteed, and according to the receipt there is a "12 month guarantee on workmanship". As it happened my car also needed its MOT done, so I returned it to the original garage, for both what I presumed would be a repair under guarantee and the MOT. Why? The *workmanship* on the lock replacement wasn't faulty. |
why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of
installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause
investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. Seems reasonable to me. |
fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of
what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was
there the first time around.
Quote:
|
By now of course my car is in something of a dismantled state, they have no doubt spent several highly chargable hours of labour getting it to this state, so I didnt really feel I could tell them to bugger off and end up being given back a car in an undrivable/unworking state In a state you knew to be illegal to drive. Would you have organised a trailer for the removal? Where else would you have taken it? |
me over a barrel. Keep up!
Quote:
|
of the reasons it failed the MOT. Of course I was told he had to dismantle the wheels/brakes etc first in order to establish what the problem was..... hmmmmm Why "Hmmm"? He's not psychic. Of course he needs to strip down to establish what the problem is. |
consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT
price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You
arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can
take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I
guess.
Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had
been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car
had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down..
spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without
any indication of what I was going to pay!
Quote:
|
You could say Im between a rock and a hard place here... especially as the vehicle itself is probably worth less than a grand. But it's scrap without the work being done. |
without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could
do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being
quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.
If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then
well... its not scrap is it? :-)
Quote:
|
What would happen then? do they have any legal right to hold onto the vehicle.. sell it, etc? Yep. |
there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply
sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im
here asking the question in a legal forum.
Quote:
|
I do feel they should have put the vehicle through its MOT first before doing anything - even though obviously it was going to fail, and let me know a quote for all the things that needed doing so that I could decide if it was worth it... rather than doing bits here and there and leaving me with an intial high bill. Yes, you probably have a point. You say "obviously it was going to fail" - why "obviously"? |
of a clue :-)
Quote:
|
Are you suggesting that you were knowingly driving around with brakes that you knew were inadequate? Did you tell them of these other MOT-fail problems you knew of? |
told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing
against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the
thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this
Quote:
|
Let's recap. You took your car to them, with known faults, and said "Please fix, and MOT". |
retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and
potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the
problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix
them whether at that garage or elsewhere.
Quote:
|
They spent time investigating, and said "This is the problem, cost £X to fix" You said "Go ahead" They did so, MOTd the car as you requested, and said "It's failed on Y - we've spent some more investigating and it needs £Z spending. What do you want to do?" |
issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better
position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any
"repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much
money as they could. :-)
Quote:
|
A few other people have suggested I approach Trading Standards about this... not sure what if anything this might achieve.. apart from possibly officially registering a black mark/complaint against their name. Maybe everything they've done is entirely legal, and simply "sharp business practise" I don't even think it's that. |
Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I
mention that figure.
Quote:
|
Why wouldn't I? I don't think they've done anything out of order from your initial description. There may well, of course, be a bit more to it. |
reading and commenting.
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
On speaking to the garage, they agreed the ignition switch had indeed failed again, and they had established that it was due to excessive current coming from the starter motor, which would need replacing. Grand total for both being replaced, 320 quid (!) |
say. Except there is absolutely no way the starter motor is wired directly
through the switch - the thing would evaporate in a tenth of a second even
with a normal starting current. Sounds like this guy has been spun a load of
b*ll*cks by the garage.
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever_pseudonym (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) 6 months ago this happened, and it turned out the car needed a new ignition switch. 133 quid (2 and a bit hours labour and part cost) 6 months later... the same thing has happened again... Id put up with it for about a month.. but eventually the things just given up on me again... so needed to call the RAC out, who got the thing fired up and I drove it back to garage. |
to claim off the garage even though its not the fault of the garage that you
kept using it even though there was an obvious problem.
IF you'd have gone to the garage the first or second time it played up
they'd have probably looked at it for free and might well have cured the
fault. Instead you waited for something to fail completely then expect a
free lunch.
Now you're complaining that it's costing a lot to fix a car that obviously
isn't serviced regularly enough.
--
Pete M - Using the Scouse Side of the Force -
Golf GTi Mk2 2.0 8v
Wood and Pickett Range Rover V8 Turbo
Golf GTi Mk1 (For Sale)
OMF#9
Currently listening to The White Stripes
#5
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever_pseudo... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) (Left in full, x-posted to uk.rec.cars.maintenance. Comments in-line.) |
it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed
apt.
Quote:
|
I checked my original receipt to see if the work was guaranteed, and according to the receipt there is a "12 month guarantee on workmanship". As it happened my car also needed its MOT done, so I returned it to the original garage, for both what I presumed would be a repair under guarantee and the MOT. Why? The *workmanship* on the lock replacement wasn't faulty. |
why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of
installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause
investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. Seems reasonable to me. |
fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of
what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was
there the first time around.
Quote:
|
By now of course my car is in something of a dismantled state, they have no doubt spent several highly chargable hours of labour getting it to this state, so I didnt really feel I could tell them to bugger off and end up being given back a car in an undrivable/unworking state In a state you knew to be illegal to drive. Would you have organised a trailer for the removal? Where else would you have taken it? |
me over a barrel. Keep up!
Quote:
|
of the reasons it failed the MOT. Of course I was told he had to dismantle the wheels/brakes etc first in order to establish what the problem was..... hmmmmm Why "Hmmm"? He's not psychic. Of course he needs to strip down to establish what the problem is. |
consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT
price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You
arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can
take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I
guess.
Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had
been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car
had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down..
spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without
any indication of what I was going to pay!
Quote:
|
You could say Im between a rock and a hard place here... especially as the vehicle itself is probably worth less than a grand. But it's scrap without the work being done. |
without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could
do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being
quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.
If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then
well... its not scrap is it? :-)
Quote:
|
What would happen then? do they have any legal right to hold onto the vehicle.. sell it, etc? Yep. |
there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply
sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im
here asking the question in a legal forum.
Quote:
|
I do feel they should have put the vehicle through its MOT first before doing anything - even though obviously it was going to fail, and let me know a quote for all the things that needed doing so that I could decide if it was worth it... rather than doing bits here and there and leaving me with an intial high bill. Yes, you probably have a point. You say "obviously it was going to fail" - why "obviously"? |
of a clue :-)
Quote:
|
Are you suggesting that you were knowingly driving around with brakes that you knew were inadequate? Did you tell them of these other MOT-fail problems you knew of? |
told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing
against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the
thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this
Quote:
|
Let's recap. You took your car to them, with known faults, and said "Please fix, and MOT". |
retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and
potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the
problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix
them whether at that garage or elsewhere.
Quote:
|
They spent time investigating, and said "This is the problem, cost £X to fix" You said "Go ahead" They did so, MOTd the car as you requested, and said "It's failed on Y - we've spent some more investigating and it needs £Z spending. What do you want to do?" |
issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better
position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any
"repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much
money as they could. :-)
Quote:
|
A few other people have suggested I approach Trading Standards about this... not sure what if anything this might achieve.. apart from possibly officially registering a black mark/complaint against their name. Maybe everything they've done is entirely legal, and simply "sharp business practise" I don't even think it's that. |
Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I
mention that figure.
Quote:
|
Why wouldn't I? I don't think they've done anything out of order from your initial description. There may well, of course, be a bit more to it. |
reading and commenting.
#6
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
|
Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever_pseudo... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) (Left in full, x-posted to uk.rec.cars.maintenance. Comments in-line.) |
it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed
apt.
Quote:
|
I checked my original receipt to see if the work was guaranteed, and according to the receipt there is a "12 month guarantee on workmanship". As it happened my car also needed its MOT done, so I returned it to the original garage, for both what I presumed would be a repair under guarantee and the MOT. Why? The *workmanship* on the lock replacement wasn't faulty. |
why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of
installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause
investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. Seems reasonable to me. |
fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of
what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was
there the first time around.
Quote:
|
By now of course my car is in something of a dismantled state, they have no doubt spent several highly chargable hours of labour getting it to this state, so I didnt really feel I could tell them to bugger off and end up being given back a car in an undrivable/unworking state In a state you knew to be illegal to drive. Would you have organised a trailer for the removal? Where else would you have taken it? |
me over a barrel. Keep up!
Quote:
|
of the reasons it failed the MOT. Of course I was told he had to dismantle the wheels/brakes etc first in order to establish what the problem was..... hmmmmm Why "Hmmm"? He's not psychic. Of course he needs to strip down to establish what the problem is. |
consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT
price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You
arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can
take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I
guess.
Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had
been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car
had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down..
spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without
any indication of what I was going to pay!
Quote:
|
You could say Im between a rock and a hard place here... especially as the vehicle itself is probably worth less than a grand. But it's scrap without the work being done. |
without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could
do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being
quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.
If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then
well... its not scrap is it? :-)
Quote:
|
What would happen then? do they have any legal right to hold onto the vehicle.. sell it, etc? Yep. |
there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply
sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im
here asking the question in a legal forum.
Quote:
|
I do feel they should have put the vehicle through its MOT first before doing anything - even though obviously it was going to fail, and let me know a quote for all the things that needed doing so that I could decide if it was worth it... rather than doing bits here and there and leaving me with an intial high bill. Yes, you probably have a point. You say "obviously it was going to fail" - why "obviously"? |
of a clue :-)
Quote:
|
Are you suggesting that you were knowingly driving around with brakes that you knew were inadequate? Did you tell them of these other MOT-fail problems you knew of? |
told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing
against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the
thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this
Quote:
|
Let's recap. You took your car to them, with known faults, and said "Please fix, and MOT". |
retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and
potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the
problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix
them whether at that garage or elsewhere.
Quote:
|
They spent time investigating, and said "This is the problem, cost £X to fix" You said "Go ahead" They did so, MOTd the car as you requested, and said "It's failed on Y - we've spent some more investigating and it needs £Z spending. What do you want to do?" |
issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better
position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any
"repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much
money as they could. :-)
Quote:
|
A few other people have suggested I approach Trading Standards about this... not sure what if anything this might achieve.. apart from possibly officially registering a black mark/complaint against their name. Maybe everything they've done is entirely legal, and simply "sharp business practise" I don't even think it's that. |
Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I
mention that figure.
Quote:
|
Why wouldn't I? I don't think they've done anything out of order from your initial description. There may well, of course, be a bit more to it. |
reading and commenting.
#7
| |||
| |||
|
#8
| |||
| |||
|
|
On May 15, 9:52 pm, Adrian <toomany2... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever_pseudo... (AT) hotmail (DOT) co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : my car recently broke down, with the same fault that occurred 6 months earlier - car was progressively becoming more difficult to start (just silence when turning the ignition key.... occasionally starting) (Left in full, x-posted to uk.rec.cars.maintenance. Comments in-line.) ah ta for that... I was looking for a more suitable 2nd forum to post it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed apt. I checked my original receipt to see if the work was guaranteed, and according to the receipt there is a "12 month guarantee on workmanship". As it happened my car also needed its MOT done, so I returned it to the original garage, for both what I presumed would be a repair under guarantee and the MOT. Why? The *workmanship* on the lock replacement wasn't faulty. You wouldnt consider the term workmanship, to encompass finding out why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of installing a new component? |
Quote:
|
If thats the case, why was the cause investigated the 2nd time, but not the first? |
repeatedly then it's probably something else causing it.
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. Seems reasonable to me. Indeed, except of course my experience suggests the switch would in fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around. |
#9
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
|
|
Why? The *workmanship* on the lock replacement wasn't faulty. You wouldnt consider the term workmanship, to encompass finding out why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of installing a new component? |
Quote:
|
If thats the case, why was the cause investigated the 2nd time, but not the first? |
From the rest of your post, your car is in it's later-middle-age - probably
somewhere around early-mid 90s, right? So an ignition lock dying is FAR
from unusual, just through old age and wear'n'tear.
No point in spending hours diagnosing that nothing else seemed wrong.
Quote:
|
There answer was that the intial switch failure couldnt have been caused by the excess current, as this would have burnt out any replacement switch in about a week. Seems reasonable to me. Indeed, except of course my experience suggests the switch would in fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of what he told me. |
Quote:
|
Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around. |
First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor
killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably
wouldn't have lasted six months or however long.
Quote:
|
By now of course my car is in something of a dismantled state, they have no doubt spent several highly chargable hours of labour getting it to this state, so I didnt really feel I could tell them to bugger off and end up being given back a car in an undrivable/unworking state In a state you knew to be illegal to drive. Would you have organised a trailer for the removal? Where else would you have taken it? Well exactly... you are agreeing with what I just wrote! ie. they had me over a barrel. Keep up! |
scratch - together with whatever other fail points. Even if it had been
just tested, it doesn't sound as if it was roadworthy.
Quote:
|
Why "Hmmm"? He's not psychic. Of course he needs to strip down to establish what the problem is. Well from chatting to various people since this has happened....the consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. |
Quote:
|
You arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I guess. Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation The car had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down.. spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without any indication of what I was going to pay! |
cost?" "Dunno - haven't had a look yet."
Of course not. You'd have said "Well, have a look, and ring me back with a
price"
Quote:
|
But it's scrap without the work being done. Technically true, but I would imagine it still has some resale value without an MOT. |
Quote:
|
If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value |
Quote:
|
then well... its not scrap is it? :-) |
Quote:
|
What would happen then? do they have any legal right to hold onto the vehicle.. sell it, etc? Yep. Yep to what? both questions? |
asked one other question.
Quote:
|
Yes, you probably have a point. You say "obviously it was going to fail" - why "obviously"? well the fact it had broken down in the first place was probably a bit of a clue :-) |
Quote:
|
Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better position to suggest MOTing first... |
of the bill? If not, then I'd suggest that they took the normal path - fix
immediate fault, MOT, see what else is needed.
Quote:
|
Maybe everything they've done is entirely legal, and simply "sharp business practise" I don't even think it's that. Would you be happy paying the £660 bill based on the above then? |
Quote:
|
Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I mention that figure. |
£320 ignition lock & starter motor.
£50 MOT - that's £370 so far.
You said the £660 is the estimated total with the brakes (and whatever
else) done and a ticket. So that's only another £290. What else is on the
fail list? Three hours labour is going to be nearly half that difference,
leaving a stack of bits. What car IS it, anyway? If the master cylinder is
the cause of the brake problems, or if maintenance has been skimped leading
to unchanged brake fluid causing seizing calipers, then I can see that the
parts bill will EASILY come to that.
Shit, if you & your mates think £700 sufficient to "stun into silence", I
(and many others) could show you bills that'd make your hair curl...
#10
| |||
| |||
|
|
Excessive current through the starter motor I think is what they mean to say. Except there is absolutely no way the starter motor is wired directly through the switch - the thing would evaporate in a tenth of a second even with a normal starting current. Sounds like this guy has been spun a load of b*ll*cks by the garage. |
solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could
easily burn the switch out.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.