Garage dilemma
Discussion
I work part time at garage. We recently had a new-ish Alfa Giulietta in for some basic servicing. When the mechanic removed the aftermarket wheels to check the brakes, he found several worrying problems:-
1) The wheels weren't the correct fitment for the hubs
2) The spigot rings were missing
3) They were held on with wobble-bolts
4) As the owner had also fitted 5mm spacers to clear the brake calipers, the bolts were too short with only about three threads (less than 4mm) located in the hub.
All of the above was explained clearly to the customer, but numbers 2 and 4 were sufficiently worrying for us to put a warning on the invoice, roughly equivalent to the 1-4 list above.
A fortnight later, the customer called us to say that his front nearside wheel had fallen off and damaged his wing. Thankfully, it was at low speed and no other damage was done. He brought the car to the workshop (still on the dodgy bolts and no spigot rings) - we fitted a set of correct length locking wheel bolts (ie only one per wheel) at no cost, to get him home.
The customer is saying that the garage should be liable for the repairs, as the warning text on his invoice didn't specifically say "vehicle should not be driven". My personal opinion is that the warning should have been sufficient, especially as it was verbally explained to the customer as well. For example, if there was a warning saying "live wires" on the end of a bared cable, it really shouldn't need to say "don't touch" as well....
My other opinion is that a garage should be allowed to prevent a car being driven away when it is clearly in an unsafe condition. I'm reliably informed that the garage simply cannot do this. However, if a landlord is expected (encouraged, even) to confiscate the car keys of a drunk customer who would otherwise attempt to drive away, why can't a garage protect customers from themselves by refusing to allow a car to be removed if it can be reliably demonstrated that it is a danger to the owner and to other road users (I dread to think what might have happened if the wheel had come off at motorway speeds...)
So - what does the PH collective think? - garage liable, or customer trying it on? Should it be possible to "confiscate" a car, pending the safety issue being addressed?
What do the likes of Kwik-Fit do when a customer comes in for two new front tyres, when the rears are illegal?
1) The wheels weren't the correct fitment for the hubs
2) The spigot rings were missing
3) They were held on with wobble-bolts
4) As the owner had also fitted 5mm spacers to clear the brake calipers, the bolts were too short with only about three threads (less than 4mm) located in the hub.
All of the above was explained clearly to the customer, but numbers 2 and 4 were sufficiently worrying for us to put a warning on the invoice, roughly equivalent to the 1-4 list above.
A fortnight later, the customer called us to say that his front nearside wheel had fallen off and damaged his wing. Thankfully, it was at low speed and no other damage was done. He brought the car to the workshop (still on the dodgy bolts and no spigot rings) - we fitted a set of correct length locking wheel bolts (ie only one per wheel) at no cost, to get him home.
The customer is saying that the garage should be liable for the repairs, as the warning text on his invoice didn't specifically say "vehicle should not be driven". My personal opinion is that the warning should have been sufficient, especially as it was verbally explained to the customer as well. For example, if there was a warning saying "live wires" on the end of a bared cable, it really shouldn't need to say "don't touch" as well....
My other opinion is that a garage should be allowed to prevent a car being driven away when it is clearly in an unsafe condition. I'm reliably informed that the garage simply cannot do this. However, if a landlord is expected (encouraged, even) to confiscate the car keys of a drunk customer who would otherwise attempt to drive away, why can't a garage protect customers from themselves by refusing to allow a car to be removed if it can be reliably demonstrated that it is a danger to the owner and to other road users (I dread to think what might have happened if the wheel had come off at motorway speeds...)
So - what does the PH collective think? - garage liable, or customer trying it on? Should it be possible to "confiscate" a car, pending the safety issue being addressed?
What do the likes of Kwik-Fit do when a customer comes in for two new front tyres, when the rears are illegal?
k off and grow up.There are stupid people out there like the American woman who dried her dog in a microwave because the instructions didn't tell her not to or the German couple who drove into a river because their new BMW's satnav didn't tell them to wait for the ferry. OP's customer is one of those.
battered said:
The above, but in today's litigious society I'd make future customers in a similar position sign a disclaimer to say "I have been informed that this car should not be driven because it is unsafe and I'm going to remove it at my own risk".
This is the best way to cover yourself.You have to be so carefull these days with idiots like the OP`s customer being "helped" by ambulance chasing lawyers. I`ve been in the car repair business all my life and seen it all.With something like this I would write it all on the invoice in detail,get him to sign it,KEEP A COPY,and make sure my mechanic was present as a witness.No garage,even an MOT testing station,can impound a customers car to stop him driving it away,even if its a death trap.
All you can do is the above and report it to the Police if its that bad a case.
Response should be that in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). 
Stupid chancer. It may be worth putting in a written form of communication that he was informed of the car's defects and the inherent dangers at the time, and that the warnings on the invoice were a summary as one would expect, not a verbatim transcript. It was his decision to remove the car from garage in that state despite the warnings. You cannot legally impound his car or prevent him from driving it no matter how dangerous it is; that's all down to the owner/driver of the car. Unfortunately, there's no more you can do for him under the circumstances.
Stupid chancer. It may be worth putting in a written form of communication that he was informed of the car's defects and the inherent dangers at the time, and that the warnings on the invoice were a summary as one would expect, not a verbatim transcript. It was his decision to remove the car from garage in that state despite the warnings. You cannot legally impound his car or prevent him from driving it no matter how dangerous it is; that's all down to the owner/driver of the car. Unfortunately, there's no more you can do for him under the circumstances.
R1 Indy said:
Riley Blue said:
the German couple who drove into a river because their new BMW's satnav didn't tell them to wait for the ferry.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/g...
And another very similar one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howabou...
Brings back memories of (re-runs of
) Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em...Good to see common sense prevailing, but the thought of a clever ambulance chaser is always a worry
It still worries me that a garage doesn't have the power to declare a car un-driveable - yes, I know that people shouldn't need protecting from themselves, but sadly, they often do.
I would sooner face the wrath of an angry customer after "impounding" their car than have the deaths of innocents on my conscience (the customer in this instance had kiddy seats in the back, so had obviously ferried his kids around whilst knowing that his wheels were ready to fall off)
The discussion that we had at the garage was that IF we had checked the brakes first, we could have refused to do any work on the car, which would then have meant that we couldn't be liable. However, the moral dilemma still exists, whereby we have a moral duty to prevent cars being driven in a dangerous condition
It still worries me that a garage doesn't have the power to declare a car un-driveable - yes, I know that people shouldn't need protecting from themselves, but sadly, they often do.
I would sooner face the wrath of an angry customer after "impounding" their car than have the deaths of innocents on my conscience (the customer in this instance had kiddy seats in the back, so had obviously ferried his kids around whilst knowing that his wheels were ready to fall off)
The discussion that we had at the garage was that IF we had checked the brakes first, we could have refused to do any work on the car, which would then have meant that we couldn't be liable. However, the moral dilemma still exists, whereby we have a moral duty to prevent cars being driven in a dangerous condition
Then how does a customer get their car back after you've impounded it? They have to have you repair it first?
I'd fuming if you tried to keep my car. Regardless of its condition, it's my car!
I'm not happy with that concept at all. It opens up a huge potential for people to be scammed and ripped off by unscrupulous garages.
Make the customer aware of the issue, sign a disclaimer and the rest is on them.
I'd fuming if you tried to keep my car. Regardless of its condition, it's my car!
I'm not happy with that concept at all. It opens up a huge potential for people to be scammed and ripped off by unscrupulous garages.
Make the customer aware of the issue, sign a disclaimer and the rest is on them.
This guy is lining up for a Darwin Award, hopefully he doesn't end someone else's life before he gets his award...
On one hand the garage should be able to keep the car from being driven away, if he arrived with a trailer to recover the car then drove it after that, that's a different matter. But part of me worries if garages are handed that power, those less than scrupulous ones could quite easily withhold the keys until they've repaired the car and excessive expense to the customer.
On one hand the garage should be able to keep the car from being driven away, if he arrived with a trailer to recover the car then drove it after that, that's a different matter. But part of me worries if garages are handed that power, those less than scrupulous ones could quite easily withhold the keys until they've repaired the car and excessive expense to the customer.
DuraAce said:
Then how does a customer get their car back after you've impounded it? They have to have you repair it first?
I'd fuming if you tried to keep my car. Regardless of its condition, it's my car!
I'm not happy with that concept at all. It opens up a huge potential for people to be scammed and ripped off by unscrupulous garages.
Make the customer aware of the issue, sign a disclaimer and the rest is on them.
Yeah, this would be my concern as well. I'd fuming if you tried to keep my car. Regardless of its condition, it's my car!
I'm not happy with that concept at all. It opens up a huge potential for people to be scammed and ripped off by unscrupulous garages.
Make the customer aware of the issue, sign a disclaimer and the rest is on them.
Most garages are fairly decent, but you always get the odd few who will claim 'your brake discs are corroded so you need a full set of discs' when it is only surface rust or something of the sort. I'm all for garages having a disclaimer though and this character in the Alfa is obviously a chancer...
A good question but I'd not be so quick to think that "jog on" will suffice in this instance.
There are a number of issues, all of which Mr Alfa driver could bring up:
1. The wheels had been on the car for x number of months/years before I went to your garage and I had no problems at all.
2. After I came to your garage, the wheel fell off within a very short period of time.
3. If you at the garage are the "experts" (and, Mr Judge, I Mr Alfa driver know nothing about cars at all) then why did you not offer to replace the wheel bolts for me before I left.
Should the driver wish to pursue a claim against the garage, all of these issues will need to be considered by a Judge. He has to decide "on the balance of probability" whether the garage has been negligent by either doing something to the car which caused the wheel to come off or by not clearly explaining the issue to the driver and sorting the wheel problem out.
Stranger things have happened but I wouldn't be so sure that a defence would succeed after seeing some of the strange decisions judges make.
There are a number of issues, all of which Mr Alfa driver could bring up:
1. The wheels had been on the car for x number of months/years before I went to your garage and I had no problems at all.
2. After I came to your garage, the wheel fell off within a very short period of time.
3. If you at the garage are the "experts" (and, Mr Judge, I Mr Alfa driver know nothing about cars at all) then why did you not offer to replace the wheel bolts for me before I left.
Should the driver wish to pursue a claim against the garage, all of these issues will need to be considered by a Judge. He has to decide "on the balance of probability" whether the garage has been negligent by either doing something to the car which caused the wheel to come off or by not clearly explaining the issue to the driver and sorting the wheel problem out.
Stranger things have happened but I wouldn't be so sure that a defence would succeed after seeing some of the strange decisions judges make.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff