Paid Insurance excess on courtesy car - Work not carried out
Discussion
desolate said:
What will you do if he says the smart repair is temporary and then gets the boot repaired?
Laugh at him probably. He is then paying twice for the same repair, when there was no need for a temporary repair in the first place - especially when they'd taken the money for the 'insurance claim' up front. Also, the car is up for sale of their forecourt now. If it was temporary, surely they'd have done it before offering it for sale? I can see the conversation with a potential buyer now:
'Oh yes, sir/madam, it's in lovely condition, inside and out... but before you buy it, we just need to take it away quickly to re-spray the entire boot-lid - nothing serious though...'
In effect, by doing this, they are admitting that the correct action wasn't taken the first time anyway, plus my line when I go in will be - agree to resolve this today, or I take legal action in the SC Court. Having spent this AM reading up the 2006 Fraud Act, this is either Fraud by false representation, or by failing to disclose information. I'll be taking a copy of it in with me when I visit, with key bits highlighted.
Another point, from what WillG said earlier, is that the quote was indeed for less than £500 before VAT (£496), so that's also quite interesting!
I did wonder whether this should be reported to the Police too, but I suspect they'll say it's a civil matter and I'd rather give the Dealer a chance to make full recompense first, now that I've got full evidence, before going full Legal, so have discounted that as an option.
Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 09:47
desolate said:
If he does get the boot lid resprayed between now and your court date what is your loss?
(Unless of course you can demonstrate that the estimate you were shown is incorrect)
I see what you mean, but don't think that has any relevance here TBH. They've already acted in a way that I strongly believe is fraudulent under Section 2 or Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 (exactly which flavour I'm not too fussed right now).(Unless of course you can demonstrate that the estimate you were shown is incorrect)
As an analogy. Someone steals £500 from your wallet. When you find out you report it to the Police. Hearing that, the thief then sneaks back and returns the money. What's your loss? Therefore, did the theft happen? I would think so!
They've already committed the fraudulent activity. If they try and cover it up once challenged, then good luck to them. I am offering them the one chance to put this right and, if they don't, will take legal action.
Well done Mike - they have clearly picked on the wrong guy here. So many of us roll over or receive the 'move on - life is short' type of shrugged advice.
BUT an analogy I can think of is damage to a rented property; if someone damages say a worktop with a lit cigarette butt then they clearly need to pay for a new worktop and its fitting to make things as they were. If the worktop isn't actually changed immediately then the landlord has still been recompensed for the damage and is in a position to repair it in his own time (or maybe never and hence risk a drop in rent for a shabby kitchen). Is the replacement timing on damage someone caused to another property their decision or the owners decision?
Meantime good luck as I do sense quite a difference and a deception based on my analogy...
BUT an analogy I can think of is damage to a rented property; if someone damages say a worktop with a lit cigarette butt then they clearly need to pay for a new worktop and its fitting to make things as they were. If the worktop isn't actually changed immediately then the landlord has still been recompensed for the damage and is in a position to repair it in his own time (or maybe never and hence risk a drop in rent for a shabby kitchen). Is the replacement timing on damage someone caused to another property their decision or the owners decision?
Meantime good luck as I do sense quite a difference and a deception based on my analogy...
desolate said:
I may have missed it in your posts but what have they done that is fraudulent?
OK, with the caveat that IANAL, which is why I posted this thread in the first place...All of this is in reference to the Fraud Act 2006 (Here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/ ). Specific words in bold below have a particular meaning of relevance in this Act (IMO).
They charged me £500 specifically as an insurance excess payment for a repair, to be conducted by a specific, named, body-shop, to what they claimed was the minimum required standard to maintain the anti-corrosion warranty of the car (full strip-down and re-spray of the entire panel). They agreed that if the repair cost was less than this excess then they would refund the difference. All of this is specifically referenced in my invoice (where they took payment) and subsequent e-mails. The estimate from the body-shop was, inc VAT, over the £500, so they have represented to me, via e-mail that I was not due a refund.
For whatever reason it appears that they have NOT repaired the car at the body-shop they said they would and also NOT to the standards they said were necessary. Therefore what they have previously represented to me is either untrue or misleading, depending on whether they never intended to do what they said, or there could have been a change in circumstances, for whatever reasons. Regardless, this is a change to what they specifically represented to me, that has resulted in a gain to them of the difference between the two repairs, which they have failed to disclose. this could be regarded, quite easily IMO, as being dishonest
The Fraud Act has two specific Sections that MAY apply here depending on what has happened (IANAL):
Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:
made a false representation
dishonestly
knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
This would apply IMO, if they knew from the start that they were not going to conduct the repair as represented and have therefore lied to, in effect, pocket the difference between the Smart repair and the £500 paid.
Fraud by failing to disclose information (Section 3)
The defendant:
failed to disclose information to another person
when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information
dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss.
Like Section 2 (and Section 4) this offence is entirely offender focused. It is complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information provided he was under a legal duty to do so, and that it was done with the necessary dishonest intent. It differs from the deception offences in that it is immaterial whether or not any one is deceived or any property actually gained or lost.
This, to me, covers the situation changing, but the MD failing to tell me and refund the difference when the change of circumstances became apparent and, by that failure, making a gain, dishonestly.
There are some aspect of those sections that potentially don't quite fit (e.g. depending on what is meant by Legal Duty in Section 3), but the overall basis is that they represented something to me that was untrue, or became untrue, and have failed to, or never intended to, disclose this to me, in order to make a gain.
The fact that the offence is 'complete as soon as the Defendant fails to disclose information' is why I don't believe any subsequent work to re-spray the boot is of any relevance - it's too late, basically.
Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 19:50
Ken Figenus said:
Well done Mike - they have clearly picked on the wrong guy here. So many of us roll over or receive the 'move on - life is short' type of shrugged advice.
BUT an analogy I can think of is damage to a rented property; if someone damages say a worktop with a lit cigarette butt then they clearly need to pay for a new worktop and its fitting to make things as they were. If the worktop isn't actually changed immediately then the landlord has still been recompensed for the damage and is in a position to repair it in his own time (or maybe never and hence risk a drop in rent for a shabby kitchen). Is the replacement timing on damage someone caused to another property their decision or the owners decision?
Meantime good luck as I do sense quite a difference and a deception based on my analogy...
Thanks! BUT an analogy I can think of is damage to a rented property; if someone damages say a worktop with a lit cigarette butt then they clearly need to pay for a new worktop and its fitting to make things as they were. If the worktop isn't actually changed immediately then the landlord has still been recompensed for the damage and is in a position to repair it in his own time (or maybe never and hence risk a drop in rent for a shabby kitchen). Is the replacement timing on damage someone caused to another property their decision or the owners decision?
Meantime good luck as I do sense quite a difference and a deception based on my analogy...
However, IMO the analogy you use doesn't work. In this case there was an agreement for the worktop to be replaced like-for-like and recompensing payment was made on that basis. The landlord then went and installed a cheap, nasty worktop instead and pocketed the difference without informing the tenant. Therefore time is not a factor - the repair has been effected already, just not to the agreed standard and cost, which, as I said, is fraudulent.
I'm in to the dealer first thing on Tue, so will undoubtedly have something to post up that PM...
Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 20:10
Where's Breadvan when you need him?
OP, in reality you are going to be on a hiding to nothing here. There will be an invoice showing that the repair cost more than £500 and your DIY paint gauge detective work will be laughed at. You may also get the back of the DP up to the extent that he does you for trespass.
I know it clearly irritates you but,mid you're smart, you'll drop this.
OP, in reality you are going to be on a hiding to nothing here. There will be an invoice showing that the repair cost more than £500 and your DIY paint gauge detective work will be laughed at. You may also get the back of the DP up to the extent that he does you for trespass.
I know it clearly irritates you but,mid you're smart, you'll drop this.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Where's Breadvan when you need him?
OP, in reality you are going to be on a hiding to nothing here. There will be an invoice showing that the repair cost more than £500 and your DIY paint gauge detective work will be laughed at. You may also get the back of the DP up to the extent that he does you for trespass.
I know it clearly irritates you but,mid you're smart, you'll drop this.
If there is an invoice showing that a smart repair costs more than £500 I'll be really surprised and the DIY paint gauge is one used by Body-Shops, detailers etc, so I don't see why it can be dismissed out of hand. If they laugh and dismiss it, then I'll be taking action - if you turn out to be right, then fair enough. I'll be quite happy, should it go to court, to get a professional paint inspection done and would also take proper legal advice first.OP, in reality you are going to be on a hiding to nothing here. There will be an invoice showing that the repair cost more than £500 and your DIY paint gauge detective work will be laughed at. You may also get the back of the DP up to the extent that he does you for trespass.
I know it clearly irritates you but,mid you're smart, you'll drop this.
As said, we'll see on Tue.
Edited by Mike_Mac on Monday 29th August 08:53
Mike_Mac said:
desolate said:
Mike_Mac said:
Lots of things...
So if they get the car repaired as per the estimate, where's the fraud?So whilst alleging fraud may be a good negotiating tactic to get a refund I doubt it will fly with the police.
desolate said:
Mike_Mac said:
desolate said:
Mike_Mac said:
Lots of things...
So if they get the car repaired as per the estimate, where's the fraud?So whilst alleging fraud may be a good negotiating tactic to get a refund I doubt it will fly with the police.
I also don't see at all how they can legitimately claim they were going to do it properly later, when it's already been fixed and up for sale.
You asked earlier how much for a Smart Repair.
I paid 145 for a small dent in the OSF wing to be pushed out, filled and then sprayed. Finish is as good as the original paint.
Colour was BMW Sparkling Graphite Metallic, but he had a suitcase of small bottles and supposedly could match any factory colour from the past few decades at the same cost.
Took him about two hours as a mobile unit visiting the house.
I paid 145 for a small dent in the OSF wing to be pushed out, filled and then sprayed. Finish is as good as the original paint.
Colour was BMW Sparkling Graphite Metallic, but he had a suitcase of small bottles and supposedly could match any factory colour from the past few decades at the same cost.
Took him about two hours as a mobile unit visiting the house.
Jakarta said:
You asked earlier how much for a Smart Repair.
I paid 145 for a small dent in the OSF wing to be pushed out, filled and then sprayed. Finish is as good as the original paint.
Colour was BMW Sparkling Graphite Metallic, but he had a suitcase of small bottles and supposedly could match any factory colour from the past few decades at the same cost.
Took him about two hours as a mobile unit visiting the house.
Thanks. This would have been more simple as there would have been no filling involved, but it gives a good idea. I would have thought £80-£120 but, as said, I'm sure the dealer has an arrangement with a local one that gives them a better rate, plus they'll be VAT exempt. I paid 145 for a small dent in the OSF wing to be pushed out, filled and then sprayed. Finish is as good as the original paint.
Colour was BMW Sparkling Graphite Metallic, but he had a suitcase of small bottles and supposedly could match any factory colour from the past few decades at the same cost.
Took him about two hours as a mobile unit visiting the house.
Just a thought. I'm not a legal person.
Might it be worth ringing them Tuesday, asking about the status of repair etc.
Reading the section 2 and section 4 from the fraud act 2006 you quoted above, there's quite a bit of stuff on them failing to declare to you.
If you go in Tuesday they could just turn round and say "Oh Mr xxx, we were just going to call you about that"' they then don't seem to have failed to declare.
I suppose though they would then give you the difference back which is what you want.
Just my thoughts.
Anyway, I commented because I want to see the outcome so please stick it to the robbing b
ds I hope you win.
Might it be worth ringing them Tuesday, asking about the status of repair etc.
Reading the section 2 and section 4 from the fraud act 2006 you quoted above, there's quite a bit of stuff on them failing to declare to you.
If you go in Tuesday they could just turn round and say "Oh Mr xxx, we were just going to call you about that"' they then don't seem to have failed to declare.
I suppose though they would then give you the difference back which is what you want.
Just my thoughts.
Anyway, I commented because I want to see the outcome so please stick it to the robbing b
ds I hope you win. steve2 said:
Send a friend in first to enquire about buying the car and ask when they can take it away, I.e. Does it need a service or any other work doing before sale.
Markbarry1977 said:
Might it be worth ringing them Tuesday, asking about the status of repair etc. [...] If you go in Tuesday they could just turn round and say "Oh Mr xxx, we were just going to call you about that"' they then don't seem to have failed to declare.
I know what you both mean, but i'm already booked in to talk to the manager on Tue and don't really see what posing as a customer will achieve beyond what I have now. Like I said, they've already repaired it to a standard they're happy to put on their forecourt (and it is a good repair), so trying to say that they were subsequently going to do the full repair is, IMO, completely indefensible, as well as utterly illogical. The key thing is, they've already failed to declare by not telling me any time in the intervening 2 months, whenever the current repair was conducted or, finally, when it went up for sale, as they obviously think it's in a merchantable condition (which it is - it just hasn't had what they represented to me done to it).Markbarry1977 said:
I suppose though they would then give you the difference back which is what you want.
At the worst case and only if they produce a verifiable invoice. TBH, though, my opinion is that, as that is what they should've, but didn't do 2 months ago, I feel they can't just expect to return to that state now they've been caught out using very sharp practice. We'll see, but I'm not lying down on this one!Markbarry1977 said:
Anyway, I commented because I want to see the outcome so please stick it to the robbing bds I hope you win.
So do I and thanks. ds I hope you win. Edited by Mike_Mac on Monday 29th August 09:08
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff