What would you do ?
Discussion
Not entirely sure which forum this should be in so feel free to move it Mods
After some advice on the following for a friend.
He owns a small independant garage.
Background is as follows;
A 'french' car came into his garage earlier in the year as a non starter. The customer has used him before and is a 'cash' payer.
After looking at the car it became apparent the cambelt had snapped and taken most of the valves with it.
Customer was given a price of circa £800 to replace all the valves/cambelt etc.
This was agreed and work started.
After new valves were fitted, the camshaft would not rotate.
Customer was advised of this and agreed the extra (£1200 in total) to replace the head too.
Car was put back together and still refused to start.
Upon further investigation it became apparent that the fuel pump and injectors were all fubar'd.
To get to this point has taken just over 6 weeks. There were problems with parts supply (mainly getting the cylinder head as the customer wanted to save money and get a secondhand one) outside of my friends control.
He advised the customer that the pump and injectors needed repairing/replacing. Due to the delays in getting it fixed, he offered to fit them for free.
Since then (about a month ago), the customer has basically just refused to pay the money for fixing the pump/injectors and has said that he just wants the car back with his original bits on it. This poses a slight problem in that the reconditioned head was an exchange item, the original head has the new valves that were bought in it etc so basically he doesn't have any of the original bits and can't get them back.
He has spent about £700 on parts alone trying to fix the car so 'writing it off' isn't an option as none of them can be returned.
There have been a few heated discussions on the phone between them, both of them refusing to come to any compromise (other than that the pump & injectors will be fitted for free offer)
The customer sent him a letter the other day stating something about the Sale of Goods & Services Act and that he 'demands' his car is fixed for the original amount quoted (£800) or he will take the business to court for damages etc etc. He want's the pump and injectors done within this too !
So what should he do ?
Jimmyarm said:
The customer sent him a letter the other day stating something about the Sale of Goods & Services Act and that he 'demands' his car is fixed for the original amount quoted (£800) or he will take the business to court for damages etc etc. He want's the pump and injectors done within this too !
The original work started out as just needing the valves and belt done as per the agreement.It then transpires that the fuel pump and injectors are also knackered, although I'm not sure what that would have to do with the original failure (maybe someone can answer that one).
The bloke was quote for the original work which was completed.
As always with these things there are always 'unknowns'. I can't see what the Sales of Goods & Services Act has to do with it unless you can quote me a specific part.
The original work and agreement was for the valves and belt nothing more. The initial price was quoted for that. He can't turn around and demand more work be carried out for free because it wasn't identified at the initial quote.
14-7 said:
The original work and agreement was for the valves and belt nothing more. The initial price was quoted for that. He can't turn around and demand more work be carried out for free because it wasn't identified at the initial quote.
All true.Now turn it around and read things as if the car owner was posting up - "I asked them to fix my car, they said £800, now they've said this and that and the other needs doing and it's over £2k and I think they're trying it on!"
The responses on here would be rather different, wouldn't they?
Not got a lot to add except that this sounds too tricky to be one for the PH lawyers to answer, suggest your friend invests a little time in some legal advice of his own.
havoc said:
14-7 said:
The original work and agreement was for the valves and belt nothing more. The initial price was quoted for that. He can't turn around and demand more work be carried out for free because it wasn't identified at the initial quote.
Now turn it around and read things as if the car owner was posting up.14-7 said:
It then transpires that the fuel pump and injectors are also knackered, although I'm not sure what that would have to do with the original failure (maybe someone can answer that one).
Personally I can't see exactly how the belt snapping can knacker the fuel pump and injectors but I don't carry out much work on cars so am open to ideas.As havoc said I think you can read this both ways. Even reading the first post dispassionately I came down on the side of the customer really, it sounds intuitively like discovering these additional problems is something that should probably have been seen at the initial diagnosis phase, or that the garage was at least a bit remiss in not discovering these additional faults sooner.
I'm no mechanic but don't you have to remove injectors to get to the head anyway, wouldn't (shouldn't?) their condition have been noticed at this step? Similarly it strikes me as a bit peculiar that someone could replace the valves and not notice the camshaft won't turn, but again quite willing to be told I'm mistaken.
I have to say though just from the way it sounds I can see why the customer might think he's being taken for a ride.
I'm no mechanic but don't you have to remove injectors to get to the head anyway, wouldn't (shouldn't?) their condition have been noticed at this step? Similarly it strikes me as a bit peculiar that someone could replace the valves and not notice the camshaft won't turn, but again quite willing to be told I'm mistaken.
I have to say though just from the way it sounds I can see why the customer might think he's being taken for a ride.
Durzel said:
As havoc said I think you can read this both ways. Even reading the first post dispassionately I came down on the side of the customer really, it sounds intuitively like discovering these additional problems is something that should probably have been seen at the initial diagnosis phase, or that the garage was at least a bit remiss in not discovering these additional faults sooner.
I'm no mechanic but don't you have to remove injectors to get to the head anyway, wouldn't (shouldn't?) their condition have been noticed at this step? Similarly it strikes me as a bit peculiar that someone could replace the valves and not notice the camshaft won't turn, but again quite willing to be told I'm mistaken.
I have to say though just from the way it sounds I can see why the customer might think he's being taken for a ride.
Just to answer the technical bits;I'm no mechanic but don't you have to remove injectors to get to the head anyway, wouldn't (shouldn't?) their condition have been noticed at this step? Similarly it strikes me as a bit peculiar that someone could replace the valves and not notice the camshaft won't turn, but again quite willing to be told I'm mistaken.
I have to say though just from the way it sounds I can see why the customer might think he's being taken for a ride.
When the car came in, it was fairly obvious there was engine damage hence the cambelt being checked. At this point it's impossible to tell that the injectors/pump are faulty as the engine would definately not run.
Injectors on diesels (which this is) are attached to the head, you don't have to remove them. Even if you did it's very hard to tell if anything is wrong with them unless one has a massive crack etc. They have to be tested by a specialist to check flow rate/spray pattern. Same with the injection pump, you can check pressure and flow fairly easyily but this doesn't mean it is working correctly. On this particular type of engine its fairly common for the pump to go and take the injectors with it (they become contaminated with particles from the brass in the pump).
TLDR is that there was no reason to suspect the injectors/pump were faulty when it was obvious the cambelt had broken.
Thanks for the responses so far, pretty much my thoughts about him getting some legal advice.
Jimmyarm said:
Just to answer the technical bits;
When the car came in, it was fairly obvious there was engine damage hence the cambelt being checked. At this point it's impossible to tell that the injectors/pump are faulty as the engine would definately not run.
You're not answering this for a friend are you? When the car came in, it was fairly obvious there was engine damage hence the cambelt being checked. At this point it's impossible to tell that the injectors/pump are faulty as the engine would definately not run.
Jimmyarm said:
TLDR is that there was no reason to suspect the injectors/pump were faulty when it was obvious the cambelt had broken.
I'm going to guess the pump is driven off the cambelt here. I wonder if the pump was the original failure & that seizing caused the other damage.EDIT: Any half skilled mechanic would check things turn before fitting a new belt though & would have noticed a seized pump while inspecting the car for the original quote.
So did the pump fail because of the cambelt, or the other way round, or independent failures?
It sounds like the garage did a very poor job of diagnosis. They noted the broken belt and valves. Didn't check the camshaft and didn't check anything else.
I think the customer has a moral right to be miffed. However he doesn't have a legal right to get the job done for £800 having agreed £1200 (even second time around). The rest depends on the form of agreement. Did the garage to a quotation to restore the engine to a working condition? Or did they do a quotation to fix the valves and belt? Or did they provide an estimate?
And in reality, as the engine cannot be returned to the start point, they need to come to a compromise.
BErt
It sounds like the garage did a very poor job of diagnosis. They noted the broken belt and valves. Didn't check the camshaft and didn't check anything else.
I think the customer has a moral right to be miffed. However he doesn't have a legal right to get the job done for £800 having agreed £1200 (even second time around). The rest depends on the form of agreement. Did the garage to a quotation to restore the engine to a working condition? Or did they do a quotation to fix the valves and belt? Or did they provide an estimate?
And in reality, as the engine cannot be returned to the start point, they need to come to a compromise.
BErt
The camshaft was only found to not be turning after new valves/guides had been fitted. No point in turning it when all the valves are bent as it won't turn properly.
On this engine the fuel pump is driven off the cambelt. The pulley will still turn if the pump is broken in most cases (you have to 'time' the pump up anyway).
Jimmyarm said:
The camshaft was only found to not be turning after new valves/guides had been fitted. No point in turning it when all the valves are bent as it won't turn properly.
On this engine the fuel pump is driven off the cambelt. The pulley will still turn if the pump is broken in most cases (you have to 'time' the pump up anyway).
I'd turn the cam before putting the new valves in as a check & I'm not a professional. Besides which you NEED to turn the cam to fit the valves properly as you'll need to adjust the clearances with shims if it's a typical shim & bucket system.On this engine the fuel pump is driven off the cambelt. The pulley will still turn if the pump is broken in most cases (you have to 'time' the pump up anyway).
As for the pump I've never known a vernier pulley that just spins when loosened for adjustment, it's typically 1/8 of a turn of play you get in my experience.
Hooli said:
I'd turn the cam before putting the new valves in as a check & I'm not a professional. Besides which you NEED to turn the cam to fit the valves properly as you'll need to adjust the clearances with shims if it's a typical shim & bucket system.
As for the pump I've never known a vernier pulley that just spins when loosened for adjustment, it's typically 1/8 of a turn of play you get in my experience.
No shims, its hydraulic tappets so its cam off, tappets out, valve springs off, valves out and reverse.As for the pump I've never known a vernier pulley that just spins when loosened for adjustment, it's typically 1/8 of a turn of play you get in my experience.
You don't loosen the pump pulley, you slacken the cambelt tensioner and remove the belt (or not in this case). The pump pulley has a hole in it, as does the pump. A timing pin goes in to 'time' the pump up. This means rotating the pulley, which would turn freely. Vernier pulleys are only for fine adjustment of timing and 90% of road car engines these days don't have them.
A friend has a diesel-engined, lion-badged, 'people-carrier' that snapped its cambelt (as the engine was turning over on the starter) at the beginning of December 2010. Owing to a convoluted series of cock-ups, it's still with the garage (!) and the third replacement engine was fitted several weeks ago but still hasn't run (!). One of the problems in initial diagnosis was (allegedly) that the garage couldn't get the injectors out, so couldn't separate the head from the block.
He's (a) ignorant when it comes to mechanicals, and (b) too stubborn to accept advice or assistance - I and two others have offered to go with him to the garage, but he refuses. I suspect some of the cock-ups might be of his making.
About two months ago he told me that he'd agreed that the garage's charge for all the work was fixed at a particular sum agreed then.
Streaky
He's (a) ignorant when it comes to mechanicals, and (b) too stubborn to accept advice or assistance - I and two others have offered to go with him to the garage, but he refuses. I suspect some of the cock-ups might be of his making.
About two months ago he told me that he'd agreed that the garage's charge for all the work was fixed at a particular sum agreed then.
Streaky
One can see both sides of the argument here.
Suppose this had been a failure of some electronics. Garages seem to work on a "let's try this and see if it fixes it" type of approach. Which again brasses the owner off as they are paying for unnecessary work.
Yet owners are unhappy to give the order "just fix it" as that is almost an open cheque book to the unscrupulous.
Both sides need to get some proper advice, is there some arbitration system that could be used?
Thinking about it, open cheque book is a phrase destined for the scrap bin in a few years time.
Suppose this had been a failure of some electronics. Garages seem to work on a "let's try this and see if it fixes it" type of approach. Which again brasses the owner off as they are paying for unnecessary work.
Yet owners are unhappy to give the order "just fix it" as that is almost an open cheque book to the unscrupulous.
Both sides need to get some proper advice, is there some arbitration system that could be used?
Thinking about it, open cheque book is a phrase destined for the scrap bin in a few years time.
Well it's turned into a bag for both sides. As a punter there is little worse than handing your car over to a garage for a job that's priced at X and then getting a call saying it will then be X+Y And then getting another call saying it's going to be X+Y+Z. For the garage owner the job just keeps ketting longer and longer and it could cost him a regular 'cash' customer.
I suggest you invite the customer in, show him the problem, explain why the job couldn't be accurately assessed at the start, and finally offer ham a deal on the labour. If this fails offer to charge cost for parts used so far (he'll still need them) and cover the labour yourself.
I suggest you invite the customer in, show him the problem, explain why the job couldn't be accurately assessed at the start, and finally offer ham a deal on the labour. If this fails offer to charge cost for parts used so far (he'll still need them) and cover the labour yourself.
Garages can jump to conclusions without checking properly. I remember getting a call from a large Ford dealership years ago about a company mondeo I had which went like this:
"Hi, it's Ford here, we've just recovered your broken down car."
"Yes?"
"It needs a new starter motor."
"It does? What makes you think that?"
"Err, well it won't start and our mechanic says it's the starter motor."
"He's wrong."
"How do you know that sir?"
"Because the reason you've recovered it is that it's just blown up on the M6 and the sump, crankshaft and most of the conrods are now lying on the hard shoulder of the motorway. If your mechanic had opened the bonnet he might've noticed the carnage."
"Errrr, errrr, errrrr, I'll get back to you sir."
"Hi, it's Ford here, we've just recovered your broken down car."
"Yes?"
"It needs a new starter motor."
"It does? What makes you think that?"
"Err, well it won't start and our mechanic says it's the starter motor."
"He's wrong."
"How do you know that sir?"
"Because the reason you've recovered it is that it's just blown up on the M6 and the sump, crankshaft and most of the conrods are now lying on the hard shoulder of the motorway. If your mechanic had opened the bonnet he might've noticed the carnage."
"Errrr, errrr, errrrr, I'll get back to you sir."
OP- your friend was foolish.
They shouldn't have taken the job on without first warning the customer that it could escalate later, depending on what was found. In that position I'd probably be inclined to provide a best and worst case costing and see what the customer is happy with- it should be at their risk.
They shouldn't have taken the job on without first warning the customer that it could escalate later, depending on what was found. In that position I'd probably be inclined to provide a best and worst case costing and see what the customer is happy with- it should be at their risk.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff