Garages and the "Supply of goods and services act"

[liner33]

Dont really want to go into any detail as yet but will when I can

Basically a garage did a job on my car, little over a few hundred miles a related part failed which I feel was directly related to the work they did, they say its just wear and tear but these parts dont tend to wear out routinely. Part in question is many thousands of pounds.

They are saying I'm responsible for full cost but they are happy to do the work if i pay. I'd rather take it elsewhere and fight about who pays later.

Can anyone suggest a specialist lawyer or do I even need a specialist lawyer.

[designforlife]

if you paid by credit card, it might be worth pursuing through your CC company...i recently got a full refund on some faulty tyres going this route, under the consumer credit act.

[chunder27]

I had something similar, not a faulty part but some pipework that was not attached properly leading to a leak.

It was something I could replace/fix so I did not contact them.

But they were ramming good garage scheme down my throats. And were very expensive, (I went there for convenience)

So I left them an awful review on the GGS website.

[liner33]

designforlife said:

if you paid by credit card, it might be worth pursuing through your CC company...i recently got a full refund on some faulty tyres going this route, under the consumer credit act.

I did pay by credit card but the work they did was £1200 but the work now required to fix what I feel they caused might be £6-8k

[Boosted LS1]

OP, I think you'll need evidence that the damage was caused by the garage and then take it from there. The AA used to prepare independent reports for it's members. Maybe other organisations do this?

[paintman]

I'd suggest you need an independent engineer's report that agrees with your view if you intend to proceed with any sort of claim or legal action.
This may be of interest: https://www.themotorombudsman.org/consumers/indepe...

[BlueHave]

Surely the part they used has some sort of guarantee. I'm sure the manufacturer would like to know if one of their parts is failing after a few hundred miles.

Any indy garages I've had part issues with have fitted a new part and claimed from the retailer they got it off.

They have a reputation to keep so maybe it gets sorted quicker than a main dealer.

[rigga]

BlueHave said:

Surely the part they used has some sort of guarantee. I'm sure the manufacturer would like to know if one of their parts is failing after a few hundred miles.

It would inddeed but not an associated part that had now failed, it wasnt the part that was originally replaced.

[anonymous-user]

A claim against a garage for careless work isn't particularly specialised, so any good litigation firm would be OK. Try Pitmans in Reading.

Why do you consider that Part A failed because of Part B?

[DuraAce]

You'd need 3rd party assessment /engineers report etc I'd have thought..

As an aside, 8k bill?! Guy the other week on here had the engine replaced in his golf r for that. I hope you're getting as much!

Have you had second opinion on what is required from another specialist garage?

[wildoliver]

What job was done and what failed, it's pretty essential info to get some useful advice, some parts do have a tendency to fail after being disturbed (water pumps after cambelts are a good example) however a good garage should advise you before doing or at least during the job giving you a chance to reduce labour for that part later. Other issues can arise due to a part being taken off and not refitted properly, but on the flip side there is a natural feeling if you have work done on your car that anything that goes wrong after must be related to the work done.

[TooMany2cvs]

If you're going to start throwing legals about, then it might help to get the basics - There's never been a "Supply of Goods and Services Act". There was a Supply of Goods Act (SOGA), but that was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act for any contracts entered into after October 2015, so that's the one you want to be referring to.

liner33 said:

Dont really want to go into any detail as yet but will when I can

Basically a garage did a job on my car, little over a few hundred miles a related part failed which I feel was directly related to the work they did, they say its just wear and tear but these parts dont tend to wear out routinely. Part in question is many thousands of pounds.

Sounds like a massive can of worms - you're definitely going to need specialist professional legal advice, and almost certainly expert witnesses. Who has the car at the moment? I take it that the car is unusable?

liner33 said:

They are saying I'm responsible for full cost but they are happy to do the work if i pay. I'd rather take it elsewhere and fight about who pays later.

That's massively unlikely to happen. You'd be asking them to fund somebody else's labour rates, overheads, profit margin.

[liner33]

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/...

I got my info from Which, I was aware it had been replaced but since the Consumer Rights Act is so all encompassing I wanted the thread title to try and provide enough info to get the right person to look at it


The garage did want me to pay for parts and labour, there is no way I would just go ahead with that I would have taken it elsewhere. They car is not drivable and needed to be recovered to the garage. Why would I want to give the garage that messed my car up more business ??

Its looking like the bill for parts is going to be ITRO £3k, they are going to cover the 4-5 hours labour required. Parts wont be available for independent inspection, but they have sent me a video and I accept its knackered

I dont want to go into any more detail and fall foul of name and shaming rules , too many internet detectives on here

[TooMany2cvs]

<looks surprised>
OK, my apologies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29

Looks like it's a relatively minor tickle to the main SOGA79. Either way, it's academic, because CRA15 is the relevant legislation.

So the car is with the garage in question at the moment?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

If you're going to start throwing legals about, then it might help to get the basics - There's never been a "Supply of Goods and Services Act". There was a Supply of Goods Act (SOGA), but that was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act for any contracts entered into after October 2015, so that's the one you want to be referring to.

Ooops!

Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. That Act is still in force.

Supply of Goods Act? There have been some statutes with that term in their titles, but you are perhaps thinking of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, often referred to as SOGA (one of several Sale of Goods Acts) . That Act is still in force.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 amends earlier legislation and introduces some new rules.

"If you're going to start throwing legals about, then it might help to get the basics".

[liner33]

TooMany2cvs said:

<looks surprised>
OK, my apologies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29

Looks like it's a relatively minor tickle to the main SOGA79. Either way, it's academic, because CRA15 is the relevant legislation.

So the car is with the garage in question at the moment?

Yes. Had to arrange a recovery company to take it in, at my cost

[anonymous-user]

liner33 said:

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/...

I got my info from Which, I was aware it had been replaced but since the Consumer Rights Act is so all encompassing I wanted the thread title to try and provide enough info to get the right person to look at it


The garage did want me to pay for parts and labour, there is no way I would just go ahead with that I would have taken it elsewhere. They car is not drivable and needed to be recovered to the garage. Why would I want to give the garage that messed my car up more business ??

Its looking like the bill for parts is going to be ITRO £3k, they are going to cover the 4-5 hours labour required. Parts wont be available for independent inspection, but they have sent me a video and I accept its knackered

I dont want to go into any more detail and fall foul of name and shaming rules , too many internet detectives on here

(1) The 1982 Act has NOT been replaced.

(2) You are assuming that the garage is at fault, but it is not clear why you think that. Describing the fault won't identify the garage.

(3) Refusing the garage the chance to rectify faults might not go well in a legal dispute, but all depends on the facts.

(4) Contact Pitmans in Reading.

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

<looks surprised>
OK, my apologies.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29

Looks like it's a relatively minor tickle to the main SOGA79. Either way, it's academic, because CRA15 is the relevant legislation.

The 82 Act deals with services, which are relevant here. The 79 Act remains relevant when goods are sold.

[liner33]

Breadvan72 said:

(4) Contact Pitmans in Reading.

Thanks

[TooMany2cvs]

Breadvan72 said:

The 82 Act deals with services, which are relevant here. The 79 Act remains relevant when goods are sold.

I defer to my learned friend, and slink off with my tail between my legs. Again.