White dots on car after respray. Fish eye?
Discussion
Mignon said:
Small Claims court, read up on it if you are not aware. Not expensive to issue a claim. You first need to give them a chance to rectify their mistakes which you need to document (photograph) thoroughly and then issue proceedings if they do not fix things.Don't just suck it up and go elsewhere and pay again. I can take you through the procedure if you wish. I have a background in law.
Thank you. They will only rectify mistake foe the additional £200 quid. Not sure if this is rectifying mistake or not!SouthHamsGaz said:
Seriously?
Tell them you want it doing properly for no extra cost or you will take them to small claims court.
Do they have a facebook page? If so and they start being awkward start posting up those pictures on it. If they don't, make them one, detailing your experience.
Part of the issue is that i'm dealing with effectively an agent who then subcontracts the work out. His business is 'restoring project cars'. I therefore don't have direct line of site to the painter..Tell them you want it doing properly for no extra cost or you will take them to small claims court.
Do they have a facebook page? If so and they start being awkward start posting up those pictures on it. If they don't, make them one, detailing your experience.
Mikearwas said:
Thank you. They will only rectify mistake foe the additional £200 quid. Not sure if this is rectifying mistake or not!
You don't seem to have any understanding of contract law which is not unusual but a party can't ask for more money to fix a mistake which is of their own making. You had a contract. They failed to fulfill it. You DO NOT pay any more money. You offer them one chance to rectify the problem free of charge and then you issue proceedings in the Small Claims court.Mignon said:
Mikearwas said:
Thank you. They will only rectify mistake foe the additional £200 quid. Not sure if this is rectifying mistake or not!
You don't seem to have any understanding of contract law which is not unusual but a party can't ask for more money to fix a mistake which is of their own making. You had a contract. They failed to fulfill it. You DO NOT pay any more money. You offer them one chance to rectify the problem free of charge and then you issue proceedings in the Small Claims court.Mikearwas said:
Update:
among a number of lies about the 'job should cost 1800 quid' and various things they have (n't) done they are prepared to redo the job for an extra 200 quid to 'cover materials'.
Given tone of voice and language used I am fairly confident that that's all I'll get before they block my number or tell me to do one.
Options are let them have a crack it for the extra 200 and take some big lads along when I go and collect it or cut my losses and get done elsewhere.
[b] My major mistake was to take a recommendation from a friend and work through a third party rather than take it direct to reputable shop.
A lesson I will learn from.[/b]
Every 'tradesman' makes mistakes (plumbers, mechanics, gardeners, paint techs ..... whatever!) but if they do it wrong they should want to get it done again (properly) at no added cost.among a number of lies about the 'job should cost 1800 quid' and various things they have (n't) done they are prepared to redo the job for an extra 200 quid to 'cover materials'.
Given tone of voice and language used I am fairly confident that that's all I'll get before they block my number or tell me to do one.
Options are let them have a crack it for the extra 200 and take some big lads along when I go and collect it or cut my losses and get done elsewhere.
[b] My major mistake was to take a recommendation from a friend and work through a third party rather than take it direct to reputable shop.
A lesson I will learn from.[/b]
Some people make mistakes in taking on a 'tradesman' on a friends recommendation (plumbers, mechanics, gardeners, paint techs ..... whatever!) without seeing the work they do. But if they do it wrong you should be able to get it done again (properly) at no added cost.
You've paid a 'fair price' - not high, not low - but there-about!
You're not asking for "concourse" for pittance - just a job done properly for fair money.
As far as I'm aware they should be given two attempts to rectify before small claims comes into play.
To me it looks like the primer hasn't been dried properly, moisture has 'bubbled' through and then the 'finishing' has taken off the paint/lacquer.
Do you know if the job was oven baked?
The weather has suddenly changed - so around about this time of year things change and most jobs need to be baked (rather than air dried) Maybe your job was the first of the change of weather - which might also explain the swirls ????
If nothing was properly dried (primer bubbling - still not properly hardened lacquer) then maybe it should have been the first job of the year to be properly heated.
Whatever the cause you shouldn't have to pay.
Squiggs said:
Mikearwas said:
Update:
among a number of lies about the 'job should cost 1800 quid' and various things they have (n't) done they are prepared to redo the job for an extra 200 quid to 'cover materials'.
Given tone of voice and language used I am fairly confident that that's all I'll get before they block my number or tell me to do one.
Options are let them have a crack it for the extra 200 and take some big lads along when I go and collect it or cut my losses and get done elsewhere.
[b] My major mistake was to take a recommendation from a friend and work through a third party rather than take it direct to reputable shop.
A lesson I will learn from.[/b]
Every 'tradesman' makes mistakes (plumbers, mechanics, gardeners, paint techs ..... whatever!) but if they do it wrong they should want to get it done again (properly) at no added cost.among a number of lies about the 'job should cost 1800 quid' and various things they have (n't) done they are prepared to redo the job for an extra 200 quid to 'cover materials'.
Given tone of voice and language used I am fairly confident that that's all I'll get before they block my number or tell me to do one.
Options are let them have a crack it for the extra 200 and take some big lads along when I go and collect it or cut my losses and get done elsewhere.
[b] My major mistake was to take a recommendation from a friend and work through a third party rather than take it direct to reputable shop.
A lesson I will learn from.[/b]
Some people make mistakes in taking on a 'tradesman' on a friends recommendation (plumbers, mechanics, gardeners, paint techs ..... whatever!) without seeing the work they do. But if they do it wrong you should be able to get it done again (properly) at no added cost.
You've paid a 'fair price' - not high, not low - but there-about!
You're not asking for "concourse" for pittance - just a job done properly for fair money.
As far as I'm aware they should be given two attempts to rectify before small claims comes into play.
To me it looks like the primer hasn't been dried properly, moisture has 'bubbled' through and then the 'finishing' has taken off the paint/lacquer.
Do you know if the job was oven baked?
The weather has suddenly changed - so around about this time of year things change and most jobs need to be baked (rather than air dried) Maybe your job was the first of the change of weather - which might also explain the swirls ????
If nothing was properly dried (primer bubbling - still not properly hardened lacquer) then maybe it should have been the first job of the year to be properly heated.
Whatever the cause you shouldn't have to pay.
Thank you for your detail reply Squiggs. Frankly no, I don't think it was oven baked. They have said a lot of things were done which I know were not the case e.g. roof and headlining removed (categorically not true). J don't believe a word they say anymore but I take your main point.
Head lining removed???????? ....... for what reason????????
You're original post says:
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
If, as you say, the head lining needed to be removed - then without being rude we're now entering the realm of 'not a lot paid for a very time consuming job"
Time is money!
Without time being spent then the finish can't be accomplished - and if time was taken in doing more than 'a couple of panels' you may have got the standard of finish for the price you paid.
You're original post says:
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
If, as you say, the head lining needed to be removed - then without being rude we're now entering the realm of 'not a lot paid for a very time consuming job"
Time is money!
Without time being spent then the finish can't be accomplished - and if time was taken in doing more than 'a couple of panels' you may have got the standard of finish for the price you paid.
Squiggs said:
Head lining removed???????? ....... for what reason????????
You're original post says:
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
If, as you say, the head lining needed to be removed - then without being rude we're now entering the realm of 'not a lot paid for a very time consuming job"
Time is money!
Without time being spent then the finish can't be accomplished - and if time was taken in doing more than 'a couple of panels' you may have got the standard of finish for the price you paid.
Squiggs they didn't remove the headlining nor did it need removinf. They told me they did (categorically not true) in some sort of perverse attempt to justify the poor quality of the job.You're original post says:
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
If, as you say, the head lining needed to be removed - then without being rude we're now entering the realm of 'not a lot paid for a very time consuming job"
Time is money!
Without time being spent then the finish can't be accomplished - and if time was taken in doing more than 'a couple of panels' you may have got the standard of finish for the price you paid.
If there's more to this story????
I think you need to explain what needed re-spraying and why - rather than saying
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
Then we might be able to work out if the price you paid was 'high', 'fair' or 'low'.
Usually for a roof, bonnet and blended wings £700 sounds about average for a 'fair' job. Less than that I would expect a poor job - and the sky's your limit for a good (v v good) job ...... but there would still be no real reason to take the head lining out to re-spray a roof, bonnet and wings.
What else didn't they do that they told you (or that you thought) needed to be done?
I think you need to explain what needed re-spraying and why - rather than saying
"Recently sent my car in to have a couple of panels redone and it has emerged like this..."
Then we might be able to work out if the price you paid was 'high', 'fair' or 'low'.
Usually for a roof, bonnet and blended wings £700 sounds about average for a 'fair' job. Less than that I would expect a poor job - and the sky's your limit for a good (v v good) job ...... but there would still be no real reason to take the head lining out to re-spray a roof, bonnet and wings.
What else didn't they do that they told you (or that you thought) needed to be done?
oakdale said:
I'm no expert but isn't that caused by not cleaning off any silicone polish residue properly before applying the colour coat?
Not really ....... fish eyes aren't usually small and deep enough to fill with polish like the pic is showing.Fish eyes usually show as large(ish) shallow dimples.
The picture seems to show either very small holes, or, as I suspect bubbles in the primer (or paint) that the colour has then been polished off from.
Maybe the OP could confirm ....... is the surface smooth, or do you think you get a pin to catch in them? (Not that I'm recommending trying the pin thing!)
If they have failed to provide a service to acceptable levels they should not be charging you to rectify those problems. The fact they say they did it 'on the cheap' is no excuse (if you bought a TV and it didnt work you wouldnt have to pay another £200 to get a replacement) - effectively you would not have paid £700 for a paint job which left you car pitted with holes in the paint. And as others have said unless you have washed the car with a scouring pad since you got it back it shouldn't have those swirl marks.
They are basically trying to mug you off as far as they can push it - if it came to small claims (go online fill in the form) then they must know they will lose and likely give in. Just make sure you have all your paperwork and evidence in order.
They are basically trying to mug you off as far as they can push it - if it came to small claims (go online fill in the form) then they must know they will lose and likely give in. Just make sure you have all your paperwork and evidence in order.
Had a similar issue with paintwork some years ago at a north east autobody shop up here in Scotland.
Initially refused to rectify the work but did soon after receiving a letter from me with photos and a reminder that if he didn't carry out the work he would end up paying for it to be done at another bodyshop, plus the small claims court fees, plus my expenses.
The small claims route isn't difficult but it's important from a legal point of view that the paintshop/agent is given the opportunity to rectify the work before you take the job elsewhere.
The letter you send to the bodyshop/agent should outline a brief timeline of events, what the problem was (with photos if possible) and what you paid. You should state that the rectified repair should be of a quality a reasonable person would expect from a reputable paintshop. Keep the wording clear, civil and free of emotion since a court official might eventually end up reading it and you'll want to come across as that reasonable person.
Your contract is with whoever you paid for the original job ie. the agent. Stand your ground with this guy. Do not pay any additional monies.
Initially refused to rectify the work but did soon after receiving a letter from me with photos and a reminder that if he didn't carry out the work he would end up paying for it to be done at another bodyshop, plus the small claims court fees, plus my expenses.
The small claims route isn't difficult but it's important from a legal point of view that the paintshop/agent is given the opportunity to rectify the work before you take the job elsewhere.
The letter you send to the bodyshop/agent should outline a brief timeline of events, what the problem was (with photos if possible) and what you paid. You should state that the rectified repair should be of a quality a reasonable person would expect from a reputable paintshop. Keep the wording clear, civil and free of emotion since a court official might eventually end up reading it and you'll want to come across as that reasonable person.
Your contract is with whoever you paid for the original job ie. the agent. Stand your ground with this guy. Do not pay any additional monies.
Thank you for all the comments and assistance.
To put some more clarity around this:
The job was required because the paint on the roof and bonnet had crazed badly. The job was to strip back to bare metal, prep, prime and paint. There was no filler to deal with.
When I went to collect car I noticed a dent in the bonnet where the primer hadn't been properly leveled off and some other scuffing to non-painted panels (should polish out). Was told that the whole car had been polished yet there remained swirl marks everywhere. I was offered £200 quid off the £900 I was going to pay for the job which I took.
I didn't have sufficient time to really go over the car carefully to pick up all the issues with the job - again my fault but a case of trying to balance a hectic work life with picking up the car. I took some photos a day or so later and send them to the agent.
The agent is spinning a load of rubbish as to why I need to pay the extra £200 quid as a compromise (would have been happy to pay a total of 900 in the first place if the job was a good one.) I have no faith that me paying an additional £200 quid will result in a better job and am concerned it will be a case of throwing good money after bad.
The thing about the headlining was the agent literally lying about what they had done on the job to exaggerate the level of work and effort they had taken. There was no need to take out the headlining in any case and it's extremely clear that they have just sanded down the roof to the edge and left the original paint where the two roof strips cover it. The lying is what pisses me off the most with it all!
Hope that clarifies a few things.
To put some more clarity around this:
The job was required because the paint on the roof and bonnet had crazed badly. The job was to strip back to bare metal, prep, prime and paint. There was no filler to deal with.
When I went to collect car I noticed a dent in the bonnet where the primer hadn't been properly leveled off and some other scuffing to non-painted panels (should polish out). Was told that the whole car had been polished yet there remained swirl marks everywhere. I was offered £200 quid off the £900 I was going to pay for the job which I took.
I didn't have sufficient time to really go over the car carefully to pick up all the issues with the job - again my fault but a case of trying to balance a hectic work life with picking up the car. I took some photos a day or so later and send them to the agent.
The agent is spinning a load of rubbish as to why I need to pay the extra £200 quid as a compromise (would have been happy to pay a total of 900 in the first place if the job was a good one.) I have no faith that me paying an additional £200 quid will result in a better job and am concerned it will be a case of throwing good money after bad.
The thing about the headlining was the agent literally lying about what they had done on the job to exaggerate the level of work and effort they had taken. There was no need to take out the headlining in any case and it's extremely clear that they have just sanded down the roof to the edge and left the original paint where the two roof strips cover it. The lying is what pisses me off the most with it all!
Hope that clarifies a few things.
Mikearwas said:
When I went to collect car I noticed a dent in the bonnet where the primer hadn't been properly leveled off and some other scuffing to non-painted panels (should polish out). Was told that the whole car had been polished yet there remained swirl marks everywhere. I was offered £200 quid off the £900 I was going to pay for the job which I took.
I didn't have sufficient time to really go over the car carefully to pick up all the issues with the job - again my fault but a case of trying to balance a hectic work life with picking up the car. I took some photos a day or so later and send them to the agent.
Yes it does. You examined the work, found faults and accepted a reduction in the price as full and final settlement of any potential claim against them. You entered into a new contract which superceded the original one. In law your contract is now satisfied. If you didn't have "sufficient time to really go over the car carefully" then you shouldn't have agreed to anything.I didn't have sufficient time to really go over the car carefully to pick up all the issues with the job - again my fault but a case of trying to balance a hectic work life with picking up the car. I took some photos a day or so later and send them to the agent.
Finally, an agent is a person who acts on behalf of another person to negotiate on their behalf with a supplier, or other third party. Your paint shop is a supplier, not an agent. Both this, and what you have said above, tells me you don't have any understanding of contract law or your rights in it but then you have admitted as much. You might want to learn up on it for the future.
You got burned, as many have been before and will be in future. I'm afraid this matter is concluded as far as any reasonable chance of recompense is concerned.
So they knocked £200 off because they admitted it was a poor job.
And now to correct the problems they want that £200 back.
To me that seems fair ...... you can't accept a discount for a poor job, and want it corrected at the same discounted price.
(In much the same way you couldn't buy say a fridge at a discounted price because it had a scratched side and then change your mind returning it and wanting to exchange it for a perfect fridge without paying the difference between the discounted and full prices.)
And now to correct the problems they want that £200 back.
To me that seems fair ...... you can't accept a discount for a poor job, and want it corrected at the same discounted price.
(In much the same way you couldn't buy say a fridge at a discounted price because it had a scratched side and then change your mind returning it and wanting to exchange it for a perfect fridge without paying the difference between the discounted and full prices.)
Squiggs said:
So they knocked £200 off because they admitted it was a poor job.
And now to correct the problems they want that £200 back.
To me that seems fair ...... you can't accept a discount for a poor job, and want it corrected at the same discounted price.
(In much the same way you couldn't buy say a fridge at a discounted price because it had a scratched side and then change your mind returning it and wanting to exchange it for a perfect fridge without paying the difference between the discounted and full prices.)
Agreed. I don't actually have a major issue with the extra 200 provided it comes back looking very good but given how job 1 went I have my doubts as to how it will end up.And now to correct the problems they want that £200 back.
To me that seems fair ...... you can't accept a discount for a poor job, and want it corrected at the same discounted price.
(In much the same way you couldn't buy say a fridge at a discounted price because it had a scratched side and then change your mind returning it and wanting to exchange it for a perfect fridge without paying the difference between the discounted and full prices.)
The accepting 200 quid off was in relation to the dent and some scuffs, not the white dot issue which the agent says he didn't realise was there either.
Mignon said:
Yes it does. You examined the work, found faults and accepted a reduction in the price as full and final settlement of any potential claim against them. You entered into a new contract which superceded the original one. In law your contract is now satisfied. If you didn't have "sufficient time to really go over the car carefully" then you shouldn't have agreed to anything.
Finally, an agent is a person who acts on behalf of another person to negotiate on their behalf with a supplier, or other third party. Your paint shop is a supplier, not an agent. Both this, and what you have said above, tells me you don't have any understanding of contract law or your rights in it but then you have admitted as much. You might want to learn up on it for the future.
You got burned, as many have been before and will be in future. I'm afraid this matter is concluded as far as any reasonable chance of recompense is concerned.
The agent, as i have described him is exactly what he is. I am not dealing directly with a body shop but through an intermediary who then deals with a painter. No need to continue the beating contract law drum, I have a basic commercial understanding of it but do not have a legal background like you and therefore do not have detailed knowledge. I am however perfectly capable of differentiating between an agent and a supplier. This man is an agent.Finally, an agent is a person who acts on behalf of another person to negotiate on their behalf with a supplier, or other third party. Your paint shop is a supplier, not an agent. Both this, and what you have said above, tells me you don't have any understanding of contract law or your rights in it but then you have admitted as much. You might want to learn up on it for the future.
You got burned, as many have been before and will be in future. I'm afraid this matter is concluded as far as any reasonable chance of recompense is concerned.
Edited by Mikearwas on Wednesday 22 November 11:51
Squiggs said:
As you accepted the job done at a discounted price I think you've got three options:
1) Pay the difference between the discounted price and the full price and let them re-do the job.
2) Live with it
3)Take it somewhere else and pay again.
Yep, that's how I see it as well. Happy to pay the difference provided I get a decent finish this time round.1) Pay the difference between the discounted price and the full price and let them re-do the job.
2) Live with it
3)Take it somewhere else and pay again.
I should have outright rejected it first time out and would have done if i'd seen the full extent of the job.
Gassing Station | Bodywork & Detailing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff