Garage refusing car release - Can they do this?
Discussion
Hi All,
Just wondered where I stand legally on this one. My car broke down on January 15th and was dropped by the AA to a regional garage. They sat on it for a month and came out with all manner of things wrong with it, from wiring fault to timing and everything else in between, having failed to come up with anything, they have sent it on to a Jaguar specialist who immediately diagnosed the fuel pump as being at fault. I have quote from the specialist who I'm happy with, but the original garage have now said I owe them £229, when they've provided no evidence of actually doing anything to the car and that they've instructed the specialist not to release the car after fixing it until I give them the £229.
Can they do this? I mean legally? They are not in possession of the car, they have provided no evidence of actually doing anything to the car and in addition, at some point in between them and the specialist, they snapped the manual gearbox release cable and deny having touched it and say it's my problem and my cost to bear.
They are saying the wheels moved freely and they had no reason to touch it, even though I know it was stuck in gear and the rear wheels were locked when the AA handed it to them and they were still locked when it was delivered to the specialist.
What can I do and where do I stand legally. Can they order the specialist not to release my own car to me, or can I simply march in and take it back?
Thanks,
V8C
Just wondered where I stand legally on this one. My car broke down on January 15th and was dropped by the AA to a regional garage. They sat on it for a month and came out with all manner of things wrong with it, from wiring fault to timing and everything else in between, having failed to come up with anything, they have sent it on to a Jaguar specialist who immediately diagnosed the fuel pump as being at fault. I have quote from the specialist who I'm happy with, but the original garage have now said I owe them £229, when they've provided no evidence of actually doing anything to the car and that they've instructed the specialist not to release the car after fixing it until I give them the £229.
Can they do this? I mean legally? They are not in possession of the car, they have provided no evidence of actually doing anything to the car and in addition, at some point in between them and the specialist, they snapped the manual gearbox release cable and deny having touched it and say it's my problem and my cost to bear.
They are saying the wheels moved freely and they had no reason to touch it, even though I know it was stuck in gear and the rear wheels were locked when the AA handed it to them and they were still locked when it was delivered to the specialist.
What can I do and where do I stand legally. Can they order the specialist not to release my own car to me, or can I simply march in and take it back?
Thanks,
V8C
The current specialist who has your can now would be on very thin legal ice not to release the car to you once you have paid for their work.
It’s then up to the first place to try and recover costs from you separately.
The only possible exception may be if the first place directly contracted the second place for the work and have paid them for the work expecting the car to be returned to them and the first place invoices you.
It’s then up to the first place to try and recover costs from you separately.
The only possible exception may be if the first place directly contracted the second place for the work and have paid them for the work expecting the car to be returned to them and the first place invoices you.
IANAL & suggest you need proper qualified advice but look up 'repairer's lien'.
"One aspect of law that is very relevant to service or repair operations is how to deal with people who won't pay for repairs carried out on a vehicle.
When someone delivers a vehicle to you under such a temporary arrangement as a repair you are classed as a 'bailee' and the customer is a 'bailor'. In law a bailee for repairs is entitled to retain possession (called exercising a 'lien') until paid.
The same does not apply to routine servicing.
Motor dealers are able to exercise liens on cars although as soon as the vehicle is released, even without payment, the right to exercise the lien is lost i.e. the vehicle cannot be reposed.
If there was, say, a valuable item in the vehicle e.g. CD's or a coat then the customer would be entitled to remove those since they don't form part of the vehicle. A fitted music system however could not be removed."
http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/legal-article-business...
Probably best to pay the £229, get your car back & then see what legal options are available to make the first garage's life difficult.
As ever, I stand to be corrected!
"One aspect of law that is very relevant to service or repair operations is how to deal with people who won't pay for repairs carried out on a vehicle.
When someone delivers a vehicle to you under such a temporary arrangement as a repair you are classed as a 'bailee' and the customer is a 'bailor'. In law a bailee for repairs is entitled to retain possession (called exercising a 'lien') until paid.
The same does not apply to routine servicing.
Motor dealers are able to exercise liens on cars although as soon as the vehicle is released, even without payment, the right to exercise the lien is lost i.e. the vehicle cannot be reposed.
If there was, say, a valuable item in the vehicle e.g. CD's or a coat then the customer would be entitled to remove those since they don't form part of the vehicle. A fitted music system however could not be removed."
http://www.lawgistics.co.uk/legal-article-business...
Probably best to pay the £229, get your car back & then see what legal options are available to make the first garage's life difficult.
As ever, I stand to be corrected!
Thales said:
That's not entirely true.
What's not true then?The op wrote they did trouble shooting work before passing the car to the other garage.
If the OP wants to dispute the bill, providing the invoice has the information for work undertaken, then he must pay, mark under protest and take it up with court, motor ombudsman.
caziques said:
Recovering your own goods cannot be theft.
Ermm yes''R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
The Defendant (T) took his car to a garage for repairs. The repairs were completed by the garage and the car was left outside the garage on the road. T called the garage and told the proprietor that he would return the following day, pay him and take the car: instead, he took the car away from the roadside several hours later without paying for the repairs.
T was charged with theft of the car contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968
The Court held that property belonged to a person if at the time of the appropriation that person was in fact in possession or control of it.''
Thesprucegoose said:
if they provide an invoice you have to pay it.
No wonder scams work so well with advice like this.Pay the second garage and get your car back.
Presumably the second garage is not connected legally with the first and hence they cannot legally hold your vehicle once you have paid - that would be extortion and blackmail.
Teddy Lop said:
Ask for an itemized invoice, ask the specialist what element of their charge reflects diagnosis.
Start with this OP, and be prepared to negotiate.
BUT £230 is not much labour in the modern garage world... unless they guaranteed to diagnose for that fee (unlikely), specialists are often a slightly open wallet, unless you specify clear stop points of XXX hours / £ YYY for them to perform their analysis?
caziques said:
No wonder scams work so well with advice like this.
You seem totally devoid of basic general knowledge in relation to theft and contracts. The op has formed a contract with the orginal garage. So if they provide an invoice he has to pay it to get his car back.
It is clear the garage subcontracted the work so still have ownership of the car.
caziques said:
- that would be extortion and blackmail.
lolEdited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 19th February 19:37
Thesprucegoose said:
caziques said:
No wonder scams work so well with advice like this.
You seem totally devoid of basic general knowledge in relation to theft and contracts. The op has formed a contract with the orginal garage. So if they provide an invoice he has to pay it to get his car back.
It is clear the garage subcontracted the work so still have ownership of the car.
caziques said:
- that would be extortion and blackmail.
lolEdited by Thesprucegoose on Wednesday 19th February 19:37
Okay, to clarify this.
I contracted them to verbally to change the fuel pressure sensor as this what the AA thought it might be, I did not directly or indirectly authorise them to poke about with the wiring /timing / anything else they thought may be wrong with it. I then asked them to transfer it to specialist when it was clear that they lacked the skills to honour the original contract to repair the vehicle.
It probably doesn't help much that I called them incompetent, that is, in the definition of lacking the competence or skills necessary to complete a given task. Although it is true and empirically proven that they lacked said competence due to their inability to even diagnose, let alone fix the fault, I feel they may have taken offence.
I contracted them to verbally to change the fuel pressure sensor as this what the AA thought it might be, I did not directly or indirectly authorise them to poke about with the wiring /timing / anything else they thought may be wrong with it. I then asked them to transfer it to specialist when it was clear that they lacked the skills to honour the original contract to repair the vehicle.
It probably doesn't help much that I called them incompetent, that is, in the definition of lacking the competence or skills necessary to complete a given task. Although it is true and empirically proven that they lacked said competence due to their inability to even diagnose, let alone fix the fault, I feel they may have taken offence.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff