Garage charging for work that wasn't needed - any action?
Discussion
Hi all,
Just a quick one. An old boy at work took his Volvo S60 into the local independant volvo dealer to have a problem cured, it was running out of power and just not going anywhere when he floored it.
The details of what were replaved are unkown by me, and probably irrelevent, but.
Part A was changed, this didn't fix the problem.
Part B was changed, these were seals that hsould have been done when Part A was changed. This didn't fix the problem.
Part C was changed, this also didn't fix the problem.
Then the tech guys contacted Volvo Sweden who suggest the replacement of a pressure switch/sensor somewhere. This did fix the problem.
The main rub with matey boy at work is that he's now facing a £900 bill for parts and abour that weren't needed and didn't help. Is he entitled to expect a reduction (other than the derisory 10% off the un-needed labour charge) considering that part that did the job was a £65 bit of kit that took about 3 hours to change?
He's obviously not happy about paying the whole lot, considering it was unrequired and seems rather expensive. I've suggested paying for the parts, but requesting not paying for the labour.
Any ideas what you lot would do? Keyboard warriors not required thanks, just those that would honestly challenge the bill rather than handing the vehicle back and keeping the courtesy car.
Just a quick one. An old boy at work took his Volvo S60 into the local independant volvo dealer to have a problem cured, it was running out of power and just not going anywhere when he floored it.
The details of what were replaved are unkown by me, and probably irrelevent, but.
Part A was changed, this didn't fix the problem.
Part B was changed, these were seals that hsould have been done when Part A was changed. This didn't fix the problem.
Part C was changed, this also didn't fix the problem.
Then the tech guys contacted Volvo Sweden who suggest the replacement of a pressure switch/sensor somewhere. This did fix the problem.
The main rub with matey boy at work is that he's now facing a £900 bill for parts and abour that weren't needed and didn't help. Is he entitled to expect a reduction (other than the derisory 10% off the un-needed labour charge) considering that part that did the job was a £65 bit of kit that took about 3 hours to change?
He's obviously not happy about paying the whole lot, considering it was unrequired and seems rather expensive. I've suggested paying for the parts, but requesting not paying for the labour.
Any ideas what you lot would do? Keyboard warriors not required thanks, just those that would honestly challenge the bill rather than handing the vehicle back and keeping the courtesy car.
So for whatever reason the garage didn't know what the fault was. So they started changing parts individually, presumably starting with the cheapest?
I don't see the issue? I mean your only potential gripe is the garage lacked the experience with that particular car to know it's weak point?
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
I don't see the issue? I mean your only potential gripe is the garage lacked the experience with that particular car to know it's weak point?
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Prof Prolapse said:
So for whatever reason the garage didn't know what the fault was. So they started changing parts individually, presumably starting with the cheapest?
I don't see the issue? I mean your only potential gripe is the garage lacked the experience with that particular car to know it's weak point?
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Is that a serious reply?I don't see the issue? I mean your only potential gripe is the garage lacked the experience with that particular car to know it's weak point?
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Genuine question!
Prof Prolapse said:
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Yes, I would.I've got bits of computers and phone systems that I ordered, fitted to customers systems, then discovered that I'd been wrong about the fault. That's my problem, not theirs.
joewilliams said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Yes, I would.I've got bits of computers and phone systems that I ordered, fitted to customers systems, then discovered that I'd been wrong about the fault. That's my problem, not theirs.
Is that unfair?
Prof Prolapse said:
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Did you actually read what I wrote? we've pretty much established that he'll pay for the parts, it's the additional £500 odd labour charge he's a bit pissed off at! It's not a question of "well they tried the cheapest bit first" it's more a question of them fitting bits that they thought might help, and then running out of ideas and calling Volvo Sweden. Bearing in mind they fitted something and then realised they'd forgotten the seals! I mean charging for a further strip down is bloody ridiculous!
Garlick said:
I think I would too to be honest. It's a case of trial and error and you pay for the investigative work to be carried out. If the part was fitted and didn't cure it I think I would expect some form of goodwill or at least to agree a mutually agreeable outcome.
Is that unfair?
I would say provided he was informed of each part being replaced and that it was a game of trial and error, then I feel there should be no refund, or at best no profit on the parts. At work, if we are not 100% sure we always advise the customer and their decision is final.Is that unfair?
They are an Independent Volvo specialist.
That is to say, they are selling their expertise in repairing Volvos.
Hence why Volvo owners would choose to use them over a (cheaper) general repair garage.
They f
ked up and the customer has been mis sold to.
Fact!
That is to say, they are selling their expertise in repairing Volvos.
Hence why Volvo owners would choose to use them over a (cheaper) general repair garage.
They f
ked up and the customer has been mis sold to.Fact!
Edited by 911motorsport on Thursday 3rd March 15:32
Garlick said:
joewilliams said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Would you think it fairer they fitted the old parts again and took the hit for the brand new but used parts they'll now have sitting on a shelf for a decade?
Yes, I would.I've got bits of computers and phone systems that I ordered, fitted to customers systems, then discovered that I'd been wrong about the fault. That's my problem, not theirs.
Is that unfair?
If the problem has several potential causes, then you're at the mercy of the garages' level of expertise. If he'd taken it to a Volvo dealer, they may have done the same thing, or they may have homed in on the sensor straight away.
What you may want to try is ringing up a Volvo dealer, describing the problem as if it still exists and asking them what their policy is about replacement parts that don't cure the problem.
What you may want to try is ringing up a Volvo dealer, describing the problem as if it still exists and asking them what their policy is about replacement parts that don't cure the problem.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff