Agreed work not carried out.
Discussion
Bought an Alfa 159 last December from a used dealer.
At the time of purchase I noted that there was an advisory on the MOT showing wear on the front suspension bushes.
I requested, and it was agreed that this was addressed prior to completion of the purchase (and this is noted as such in the comments on the sales invoice)
In addition I requested a cam-belt change as there wasn't one shown on the service history.
A compromise was reached where I paid a little extra to contribute to the cam belt as he was addressing the suspension arms.
I've just had the car in for some work, at the same specialist that the dealer used.
The suspension arms still have play and there is no evidence that they've been touched in the last year or so.
They checked their own records and can see the request for work for the cam belt but nothing else.
I've emailed the dealer this morning to see if they can explain why the work that was agreed was no carried out.
At the time of purchase I noted that there was an advisory on the MOT showing wear on the front suspension bushes.
I requested, and it was agreed that this was addressed prior to completion of the purchase (and this is noted as such in the comments on the sales invoice)
In addition I requested a cam-belt change as there wasn't one shown on the service history.
A compromise was reached where I paid a little extra to contribute to the cam belt as he was addressing the suspension arms.
I've just had the car in for some work, at the same specialist that the dealer used.
The suspension arms still have play and there is no evidence that they've been touched in the last year or so.
They checked their own records and can see the request for work for the cam belt but nothing else.
I've emailed the dealer this morning to see if they can explain why the work that was agreed was no carried out.
Which suspension parts were noted on the mot ?
SOME wear on lower arms / wishbones will be present on any alfa with miles on them , they are made of chocolate and some regard them as service items .
The bigger concern would have been the belts . Failure of these on many Alfas is an absolute disaster often leading to major expensive rebuilds not just valve replacement .
SOME wear on lower arms / wishbones will be present on any alfa with miles on them , they are made of chocolate and some regard them as service items .
The bigger concern would have been the belts . Failure of these on many Alfas is an absolute disaster often leading to major expensive rebuilds not just valve replacement .
grumpy52 said:
Which suspension parts were noted on the mot ?
SOME wear on lower arms / wishbones will be present on any alfa with miles on them , they are made of chocolate and some regard them as service items .
The bigger concern would have been the belts . Failure of these on many Alfas is an absolute disaster often leading to major expensive rebuilds not just valve replacement .
Lower suspension arm bushes.SOME wear on lower arms / wishbones will be present on any alfa with miles on them , they are made of chocolate and some regard them as service items .
The bigger concern would have been the belts . Failure of these on many Alfas is an absolute disaster often leading to major expensive rebuilds not just valve replacement .
Regardless of whether they are generally considered consumables, they were agreed to have been replaced, and weren't. This had 62k on the clock at the time of purchase
feef said:
Bought an Alfa 159 last December from a used dealer.
At the time of purchase I noted that there was an advisory on the MOT showing wear on the front suspension bushes.
I requested, and it was agreed that this was addressed prior to completion of the purchase (and this is noted as such in the comments on the sales invoice)
In addition I requested a cam-belt change as there wasn't one shown on the service history.
A compromise was reached where I paid a little extra to contribute to the cam belt as he was addressing the suspension arms.
I've just had the car in for some work, at the same specialist that the dealer used.
The suspension arms still have play and there is no evidence that they've been touched in the last year or so.
They checked their own records and can see the request for work for the cam belt but nothing else.
I've emailed the dealer this morning to see if they can explain why the work that was agreed was no carried out.
Wouldn’t it have been an idea to check the work had been done at the time? You’ve let a year pass and I reckon the dealer did nothing and won’t want to know now.At the time of purchase I noted that there was an advisory on the MOT showing wear on the front suspension bushes.
I requested, and it was agreed that this was addressed prior to completion of the purchase (and this is noted as such in the comments on the sales invoice)
In addition I requested a cam-belt change as there wasn't one shown on the service history.
A compromise was reached where I paid a little extra to contribute to the cam belt as he was addressing the suspension arms.
I've just had the car in for some work, at the same specialist that the dealer used.
The suspension arms still have play and there is no evidence that they've been touched in the last year or so.
They checked their own records and can see the request for work for the cam belt but nothing else.
I've emailed the dealer this morning to see if they can explain why the work that was agreed was no carried out.
bad company said:
Wouldn’t it have been an idea to check the work had been done at the time? You’ve let a year pass and I reckon the dealer did nothing and won’t want to know now.
I guess so in hindsight, but getting a report to back up the work that's been done due to an earlier report is a little belt-and-braces.I highlighted an issue, it was agreed to be done, and it wasn't. We shouldn't need to doublecheck the work thereafter too.
feef said:
bad company said:
Wouldn’t it have been an idea to check the work had been done at the time? You’ve let a year pass and I reckon the dealer did nothing and won’t want to know now.
I guess so in hindsight, but getting a report to back up the work that's been done due to an earlier report is a little belt-and-braces.I highlighted an issue, it was agreed to be done, and it wasn't. We shouldn't need to doublecheck the work thereafter too.
AdeTuono said:
feef said:
bad company said:
Wouldn’t it have been an idea to check the work had been done at the time? You’ve let a year pass and I reckon the dealer did nothing and won’t want to know now.
I guess so in hindsight, but getting a report to back up the work that's been done due to an earlier report is a little belt-and-braces.I highlighted an issue, it was agreed to be done, and it wasn't. We shouldn't need to doublecheck the work thereafter too.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff