Paid Insurance excess on courtesy car - Work not carried out
Discussion
I could do with a bit of advice from someone who knows the Law/Insurance. A while back I had a Main Dealer courtesy car for a few days. It was one of the staff's normal work car. While I had it the boot-lid opened against an obstruction causing a stone-chip sized nick in the paint (to metal). I informed the MD on return, who stated:
- That it was an insurance job and couldn't be repaired as was.
- That they had to re-spray the whole boot to maintain the anti-corrosion warranty.
- That I would have to pay the excess charge on the Insurance (£500).
While a bit peeved, especially with such a small amount of damage, I didn't argue, but did ask the cost. Initially they said that wasn't relevant, wanted to take all the money and that was it. My point was, what if the repair costs less than that? They promised to get an estimate and, if less, refund the difference, so I paid the excess and waited.
The estimate was for stripping and painting the whole boot, plus replacing all the badges etc and cost more than the excess. I put this down as a lesson to just buy a touch-up pen next time, but did ask the MD when the work would be carried out and was told within a few weeks, depending on when the car was free.
It's now well over two months since the money was taken, I've checked with the body shop and they've not heard anything since the estimate.
In sum - can I take this further? To me, the MD has taken my excess and not done the work within a reasonable time-frame (or is over 2 months ok?). If it's not been done, then leaving a to-metal chip for two months won't do the anti-corrosion warranty any good and if they've just Smart repaired it, then I've had money taken under false pretences (or whatever the correct term is).
- That it was an insurance job and couldn't be repaired as was.
- That they had to re-spray the whole boot to maintain the anti-corrosion warranty.
- That I would have to pay the excess charge on the Insurance (£500).
While a bit peeved, especially with such a small amount of damage, I didn't argue, but did ask the cost. Initially they said that wasn't relevant, wanted to take all the money and that was it. My point was, what if the repair costs less than that? They promised to get an estimate and, if less, refund the difference, so I paid the excess and waited.
The estimate was for stripping and painting the whole boot, plus replacing all the badges etc and cost more than the excess. I put this down as a lesson to just buy a touch-up pen next time, but did ask the MD when the work would be carried out and was told within a few weeks, depending on when the car was free.
It's now well over two months since the money was taken, I've checked with the body shop and they've not heard anything since the estimate.
In sum - can I take this further? To me, the MD has taken my excess and not done the work within a reasonable time-frame (or is over 2 months ok?). If it's not been done, then leaving a to-metal chip for two months won't do the anti-corrosion warranty any good and if they've just Smart repaired it, then I've had money taken under false pretences (or whatever the correct term is).
The MD is not too handy for me, but I have checked every so often and the car wasn't there. It's probably being used by the member of staff mentioned, or continuing as a courtesy car. Now I know it's not been done I will be checking much more often. What I'd like to find is not an unrepaired chip, but rather a blob of touch up paint. Until then I can wait ref the £500.
My suspicion is that it'll never get done and the excess is just banked (the fact they haven't even booked it in for the work in over 2 months would suggest that IMO), but I don't therefore want to precipitate them getting the job done just because I've chased. I'd rather wait until I can definitely say it was not going to be done or get proof that they've just touched it up, then go f
king mental at their top bloke, but with evidence. What I would like to know is if there's a reasonable time by law that is recognised as such? If so then I'll wait until then.
My suspicion is that it'll never get done and the excess is just banked (the fact they haven't even booked it in for the work in over 2 months would suggest that IMO), but I don't therefore want to precipitate them getting the job done just because I've chased. I'd rather wait until I can definitely say it was not going to be done or get proof that they've just touched it up, then go f
king mental at their top bloke, but with evidence. What I would like to know is if there's a reasonable time by law that is recognised as such? If so then I'll wait until then. WillG said:
I would imagine they are simply waiting until they finish using the car as a courtesy car, and put on the forecourt for sale, at which point they will do all the little dinks and scratches in one go. That's what I do if I were a dealer.
I would imagine they won't claim on their insurance, by the time they take off vat and their profit on the job, probably won't be worth it.
£500+ doesn't seem unreasonable to strip and paint a boot and all the associated stuff, at the end of the day you signed a bit of paper that's says your are liable for the first £500 for damages, you damaged the car.
Next time I'd take cdw or arrange your own insurance, or get the dealer to pick your car up from home.
Don't really need advice on what to do next time (that's not really the question I was asking) and the cost of repair isn't an issue. The issue is that the work I've paid for hasn't been done. If it had I wouldn't have an issue, I did, after all, accept the terms of the insurance and have paid the excess - if they don't then claim but keep the excess then that's theft. It's nothing to do with whether it's worth it to them - this is meant to be an insurance job!I would imagine they won't claim on their insurance, by the time they take off vat and their profit on the job, probably won't be worth it.
£500+ doesn't seem unreasonable to strip and paint a boot and all the associated stuff, at the end of the day you signed a bit of paper that's says your are liable for the first £500 for damages, you damaged the car.
Next time I'd take cdw or arrange your own insurance, or get the dealer to pick your car up from home.
Put it this way, if your car is damaged you'd expect it to be repaired, then and there, especially when you've paid towards it via an insurance excess. If the dealer waits until the car goes on sale to fix the various dinks and chips then how many people will have coughed up to repair the same panel? Nice little earner! Plus I very much doubt that cars will have entire panels resprayed to correct one stone chip (although I may be totally wrong in that).
Edited by Mike_Mac on Friday 26th August 21:47
WillG said:
Yeah but if my cars damaged that's different, I have a contract with my insurance company to repair my car. On the flip side if my insurers give me cash, I'm not compelled to use it to repair my car. You have a contract with the md (I'm guessing) that states the xs is £500. Seperate to that it probably states you are liable for the first £500 of damage. I doubt it states that they must use that £500 to pay an xs on an insurance claim, nor are they compelled to repair the damage.
I doubt very much that providing courtesy cars is a profitable venture.
If you follow the manufactures repair requirements to the letter, then they probably do have to repaint the entire panel. I recently saw a Golf that a minor scrap on the rear bumper, a smart repairer quoted £80 to fix. VW quoted £1400 to remove the rear bumper, prep and repaint the bumper boot lid and rear quarter panel, etc. The insurer involved paid VW because the smart repair is not deemed a proper repair to the manufacturers guidelines.
In order:I doubt very much that providing courtesy cars is a profitable venture.
If you follow the manufactures repair requirements to the letter, then they probably do have to repaint the entire panel. I recently saw a Golf that a minor scrap on the rear bumper, a smart repairer quoted £80 to fix. VW quoted £1400 to remove the rear bumper, prep and repaint the bumper boot lid and rear quarter panel, etc. The insurer involved paid VW because the smart repair is not deemed a proper repair to the manufacturers guidelines.
It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.
Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.
The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.
However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.
What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!
If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy
Edited by Mike_Mac on Saturday 27th August 10:06
WillG said:
Mike_Mac said:
In order:
It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.
Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.
The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.
However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.
What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!
If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy
Chill, I'm trying to help.It's not different - it is an insurance claim, plain and simple (see below). I am not just 'giving' them cash. I am not disputing that a full rather than Smart repair costs more than £500 (£596 to be exact) and is very likely to be required by the manufacturer's guidelines (fair enough). I fail to see whether or not courtesy cars are profitable is of any relevance.
Moving on, there's no need (and it's not really helpful) to repeatedly guess what the contract 'probably' does or does not say - I have it in front of me and it states that 'Where the car is covered by the dealership insurance the excess is £500.' It was covered and that was the basis of me paying the money.
The process explained to me at the time was that the dealership insurance is provided by an insurance company (on broadly the same basis as anyone else), who the dealership then submits a claim to in order to get the damage repaired. I was there when the Service Rep phoned the Insurance Company and sent the details off to the garage for the estimate, which I have a copy of. Therefore I am liable for the excess they pay for claiming on their insurance policy, which I do not have a problem with.
However, if I pay the excess on an insurance claim that they subsequently don't make, then that's fraud/theft/whatever IMO. As with any other insurance, I very much doubt that you can delay claiming until you feel like it, or just not get the repair done that the claim is for, but keep the excess you have passed on to the customer.
What I am asking is for someone who knows what they are talking about (possibly someone in a MD or Insurance Coy) to confirm how these policies work and what is considered a reasonable time-frame to both submit the claim and then complete the work (bearing in mind they don't seem to have even submitted a claim yet). They may have the ability to 'defer' the work until the car is prepped for retail, but that, to me, is seriously dodgy as if they pull that stunt each time over the 12 (?) or so months the car is a courtesy slag, then potentially several people are going to pay an excess to repair the same panel - to me, not right!
If they aren't going to submit a claim - dodgy.
If they've just used a blob of touch-up paint - dodgy
If they're waiting until the car goes for retail (6-12 months from now?) before doing it all in a one - dodgy
If they submitted the claim as they said they would and then conduct an insurance-approved repair - Not dodgy
Edited by Mike_Mac on Saturday 27th August 10:06
I do work in insurance, nothing to do with motor trade insurance, but the basics are the same.
If they have notified the insurance company of the damage, which you say they have, and provided an estimate there is no rush for them to complete the claim, there is generally no term about how soon repairs must be completed, providing the damage is not getting any worse, and therefore they subsequently try to claim for more.
The estimate for £596, does this include everything inc VAT? If it does then they assuming the md are vat registered they cannot make a claim, as the insurers will not pay the vat as they can claim it back, so less the vat the estimate is less than the xs, so they cannot claim.
This is why the contract is important, you said it states the xs is £500 which we know is true, but it will depend what the rest of it says. I doubt that the contract states you only have to pay if they make an insurance claim, as of course this wouldn't work for say £200 worth of damage, so I imagine it simply says you are liable to pay them for damage to the car, upto the maximum of £500 to coincide with the xs. But I don't see that they are compelled to use this money only to pay an xs, nor to actually repair the car.
I wanted to make sure this didn't go down a random rabbit hole, so took to opportunity to clear some grey areas up that your post highlighted, plus put the actual contract line in there for info.On the rest of your post, ref contract, I was told that I was paying the insurance excess for the repair and the line I quoted from the contract is the only bit that mentions anything to do with damage and specifically talks about it being an insurance excess.
I agree that this should be either excess or cost of repair, which is fair enough, especially for a chip, but that comes back to only paying what the repair actually cost (up to £500), not just stumping up the full amount regardless. Initially they just wanted the £500 and I had to challenge them about 'what if' the actual cost was less that that.
However, there has been a few developments, but I will probably only be able to post, one way or another, tomorrow. No deep suspense, but it's still ongoing.
Blaster72 said:
What does the invoice for the £500 actually say? I think it's bizarre they took the money before the work was done - sounds dodgy as heck.
Good Point! Just dug it out - Basically it says it is an excess payment and also mentions a refund if the cost is less than this. I also have e-mails with the same thing, so glad I pushed for them.OK - the development...
I happened to be near the dealer today, so thought, sod it - and went to have a look (probably wouldn't have except for CaptainMorgan's post - cheers!!
). Guess what was parked up as an 'Approved Used' car, with a nice shiny boot-lid.
So, now I knew that it had been repaired, but hadn't been to the place that provided the estimate, but I didn't know exactly what type of repair was conducted, or how much it cost.
However, I luckily happen to have a Paint Thickness Gauge in the garage (CM-8828 if anyone's interested), so I went home, collected it and headed over once they closed to get some readings.
A reading from my front wing, which had been resprayed, was 240, which is about usual for a repair/re-spray as it's always thicker than factory applied paint. The other wing, which was original, was 154. Again that is about usual for factory paint, although depth depends on the angle of the panel, so can can change across something as varied as a boot-lid. Similar areas should remain within a close reach of each other, though.
I moved on to the Courtesy Car. The results were very interesting.
Top of the boot (L-R) - 136, 117, 130 (variation of 19, pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Below the Number Plate (L-R) - 103, 123, 120 (variation of 20, again pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Edge of boot-lid (L-R) - 152, 221(!), 253(!), 170 (variation of 101, definitely a re-spray, but localised right on the chip area).
So, that says, fairly convincingly, that the car has had some form of 'Smart' repair, but the rest of the boot-lid has not been touched.
bds! I'm so glad I pushed for copies of the invoice, photos and everything else!
I have those documents, all e-mails discussing the same and photos of all of these depth tests. I will be calling the dealer tomorrow with them in tow to see, or arrange an appointment with, the Dealership's manager, ASAP.
I will be demanding my Excess back in full, as they have IMO defrauded me!
One question is - does anyone know what a localised Smart repair usually costs? I'm assuming about £80 to Joe Public, but the dealer likely won't pay that price, for sure!!
I'll say it again, bds!!
I happened to be near the dealer today, so thought, sod it - and went to have a look (probably wouldn't have except for CaptainMorgan's post - cheers!!
). Guess what was parked up as an 'Approved Used' car, with a nice shiny boot-lid. So, now I knew that it had been repaired, but hadn't been to the place that provided the estimate, but I didn't know exactly what type of repair was conducted, or how much it cost.
However, I luckily happen to have a Paint Thickness Gauge in the garage (CM-8828 if anyone's interested), so I went home, collected it and headed over once they closed to get some readings.
A reading from my front wing, which had been resprayed, was 240, which is about usual for a repair/re-spray as it's always thicker than factory applied paint. The other wing, which was original, was 154. Again that is about usual for factory paint, although depth depends on the angle of the panel, so can can change across something as varied as a boot-lid. Similar areas should remain within a close reach of each other, though.
I moved on to the Courtesy Car. The results were very interesting.
Top of the boot (L-R) - 136, 117, 130 (variation of 19, pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Below the Number Plate (L-R) - 103, 123, 120 (variation of 20, again pretty much spot on for factory paint).
Edge of boot-lid (L-R) - 152, 221(!), 253(!), 170 (variation of 101, definitely a re-spray, but localised right on the chip area).
So, that says, fairly convincingly, that the car has had some form of 'Smart' repair, but the rest of the boot-lid has not been touched.
b
ds! I'm so glad I pushed for copies of the invoice, photos and everything else!I have those documents, all e-mails discussing the same and photos of all of these depth tests. I will be calling the dealer tomorrow with them in tow to see, or arrange an appointment with, the Dealership's manager, ASAP.
I will be demanding my Excess back in full, as they have IMO defrauded me!
One question is - does anyone know what a localised Smart repair usually costs? I'm assuming about £80 to Joe Public, but the dealer likely won't pay that price, for sure!!
I'll say it again, b
ds!!Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 09:32
Edited by Mike_Mac on Sunday 28th August 09:32
The wording of the contract I signed (see several of the posts above) stated £500, as did the payment note on the invoice I was given. Of course repainting the whole boot was bks, that was why I kept all the evidence and got everything in writing, as well as checking yesterday whether it had been done, because I strongly suspected they were going to do something like this and don't like being taken for a mug.
There's no need for any bks like pretending to buy the car, why would I when I can just walk in tomorrow, or probably Tuesday,with evidence, and politely ask them for an explanation...
ks, that was why I kept all the evidence and got everything in writing, as well as checking yesterday whether it had been done, because I strongly suspected they were going to do something like this and don't like being taken for a mug. There's no need for any b
ks like pretending to buy the car, why would I when I can just walk in tomorrow, or probably Tuesday,with evidence, and politely ask them for an explanation...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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
OK, update time...
I went in to the Dealer first thing this AM, with a witness. I laid out what I had, asked them for an explanation, highlighted how 'annoyed' I was, told them I wanted to give them a chance to investigate and determine why this has happened, but that I fully expect my money back.
The manager I was dealing with made no attempt to fob it off and accepted that, on the face of it, it looked like a Smart repair had been carried out. He promised to investigate fully and then get back to me no later than 5 PM with the outcome. I was happy with that and left.
Fast forward to just before 5 PM, the manager phoned me. In sum, he has confirmed the car had a Smart repair, conducted by the Dealer group's in-group company and accepted what I had said happened, had happened.
Apparently the reason for this was because a new sales manager had been appointed the week after the ding happened and, as part of inspecting the stock, told the shop floor to get the chip repaired. The Service Desk woman who I dealt with initially, forgot, to tell him a customer had already paid an excess for the repair and, as time went on, it disappeared into the noise and was forgotten. He was absolutely certain, having spoken to the majority of the people involved, that this was just down to unfortunate human error, rather than deliberate dishonesty.
As a result of all this, he then offered to fully refund my money and give 50% off my next service. I view that as entirely satisfactory, so accepted.
So, to round this off, thanks to those who took the time to post, my bank account will soon be looking a bit healthier and i'm now off to have a beer!!
I went in to the Dealer first thing this AM, with a witness. I laid out what I had, asked them for an explanation, highlighted how 'annoyed' I was, told them I wanted to give them a chance to investigate and determine why this has happened, but that I fully expect my money back.
The manager I was dealing with made no attempt to fob it off and accepted that, on the face of it, it looked like a Smart repair had been carried out. He promised to investigate fully and then get back to me no later than 5 PM with the outcome. I was happy with that and left.
Fast forward to just before 5 PM, the manager phoned me. In sum, he has confirmed the car had a Smart repair, conducted by the Dealer group's in-group company and accepted what I had said happened, had happened.
Apparently the reason for this was because a new sales manager had been appointed the week after the ding happened and, as part of inspecting the stock, told the shop floor to get the chip repaired. The Service Desk woman who I dealt with initially, forgot, to tell him a customer had already paid an excess for the repair and, as time went on, it disappeared into the noise and was forgotten. He was absolutely certain, having spoken to the majority of the people involved, that this was just down to unfortunate human error, rather than deliberate dishonesty.
As a result of all this, he then offered to fully refund my money and give 50% off my next service. I view that as entirely satisfactory, so accepted.
So, to round this off, thanks to those who took the time to post, my bank account will soon be looking a bit healthier and i'm now off to have a beer!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff