FUCK YOU LAND ROVER. DOUBLE FUCK YOU FARNELLS.
Nige
Without my consent, they fit a new one at �700.
Like fuck as like, the shower of utter cunts.
You can get them brand new for �349 each.
CUNTS.
Ian Rawlings
Take the truck off them and start arguing, they don't have any right
to hold the truck until you've paid, only bailiffs can hold or take
goods in leui of payment. Also if they've not asked you for
permission to do the work, don't pay them for it. Look on it as
payback for being so useless!
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
Andy
"Ian Rawlings" <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhem9s9...@lounge.tarcus.org.uk...
> On 2009-10-30, Nige <nigel.in...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> 3 fucking weeks to tell me the front NS air suspension bag is leaking.
>> Without my consent, they fit a new one at �700.
>>
>> Like fuck as like, the shower of utter cunts.
>>
>> You can get them brand new for �349 each.
>>
>> CUNTS.
>
> Take the truck off them and start arguing, they don't have any right
> to hold the truck until you've paid, only bailiffs can hold or take
> goods in leui of payment. Also if they've not asked you for
> permission to do the work, don't pay them for it. Look on it as
> payback for being so useless!
>
Nightmare!!!
You didn't authorise it so don't pay!!
--
Andy
Bob Hobden
"Andy" wrote ...
>
> "Ian Rawlings" wrote in message Nige wrote:
>>
>>> 3 fucking weeks to tell me the front NS air suspension bag is leaking.
>>> Without my consent, they fit a new one at �700.
>>>
>>> Like fuck as like, the shower of utter cunts.
>>>
>>> You can get them brand new for �349 each.
>>>
>>> CUNTS.
>>
>> Take the truck off them and start arguing, they don't have any right
>> to hold the truck until you've paid, only bailiffs can hold or take
>> goods in leui of payment. Also if they've not asked you for
>> permission to do the work, don't pay them for it. Look on it as
>> payback for being so useless!
>>
>
>
> Nightmare!!!
>
> You didn't authorise it so don't pay!!
>
a problem so they did.
Had the same with my 90 when I first bought it, asked the garage to fix a
fuel starvation problem and they all but renewed the whole fuel system
including a new Webber carb before finding it was only a knackered fuel
pump. So instead of a bill for about �100 I got a bill bigger than Nige's.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
1986 90 Utility 2.5 petrol
Nige
"Andy" <andrew...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:xqGdnSDbm5RotHbX...@bt.com...
>
>
> Nightmare!!!
>
> You didn't authorise it so don't pay!!
>
>
I went fucking postal I can tell you.
It's coming off tomorrow & Phil is fitting one for me.
3 fucking weeks, that is shit beyond shit.
Nige
"Bob Hobden" <bo...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:7l0oh7F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Nightmare!!!
>>
>> You didn't authorise it so don't pay!!
>>
> I'm not so sure that would stand up legally. No doubt Nige asked them
> to fix a problem so they did.
> Had the same with my 90 when I first bought it, asked the garage to
> fix a fuel starvation problem and they all but renewed the whole fuel
> system including a new Webber carb before finding it was only a
> knackered fuel pump. So instead of a bill for about �100 I got a bill
> bigger than Nige's.
I asked for a diagnosis, not for it to be fixed.
Shower of mongtards.
Andy
>
> It's coming off tomorrow & Phil is fitting one for me.
>
> 3 fucking weeks, that is shit beyond shit.
>
The service manager at Bradford is a complete mong, Martin I think he is
called. I've had a few heated debates with him as he doesn't know what he is
talking about and tries to fob you off with bull.
He told me I needed a full door card when an electric window switch broke on
my D3, Claimed it was all moulded together and not available separately. I
protested but he was adamant so in front of his eyes I popped the faulty
switch out with a screwdriver, he reckoned I had broken it. I walked into
parts and asked if it was available, they confirmed it was and ordered one
for about �4 - what a twat!!
--
Andy
GbH
> On 2009-10-30, Nige <nigel.in...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> 3 fucking weeks to tell me the front NS air suspension bag is
>> leaking. Without my consent, they fit a new one at �700.
>>
>> Like fuck as like, the shower of utter cunts.
>>
>> You can get them brand new for �349 each.
>>
>> CUNTS.
>
> Take the truck off them and start arguing, they don't have any right
> to hold the truck until you've paid, only bailiffs can hold or take
> goods in leui of payment. Also if they've not asked you for
> permission to do the work, don't pay them for it. Look on it as
> payback for being so useless!
Remember to thank them for their most generous donation.
--
Geoff
ExploitEd
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I do wish I could
remember the darn question
GbH
I refer the Poster to my previous reply!
Oily
the fault (by trial and error it seems) you should have asked them to refit
all your other old bits and only paid them for the correct diagnosis, the
pump and fitting IMO.
Bob Hobden
"Nige" wrote ...
> "Bob Hobden" > wrote in message
>>> Nightmare!!!
>>>
>>> You didn't authorise it so don't pay!!
>>>
>> I'm not so sure that would stand up legally. No doubt Nige asked them to
>> fix a problem so they did.
>> Had the same with my 90 when I first bought it, asked the garage to fix a
>> fuel starvation problem and they all but renewed the whole fuel system
>> including a new Webber carb before finding it was only a knackered fuel
>> pump. So instead of a bill for about �100 I got a bill bigger than
>> Nige's.
>
>
> I asked for a diagnosis, not for it to be fixed.
>
you an estimate and asking for your permission to continue.
Did you sign anything?
Nige
>
>> I asked for a diagnosis, not for it to be fixed.
>>
> Then they had no right to do any work to correct the fault without
> giving you an estimate and asking for your permission to continue.
> Did you sign anything?
>
Nope, i also have thier car & if push comes to shove, i'll hide it.
Bob Hobden
"Nige" wrote
>
> "Bob Hobden"wrote in message
>>>
>> Then they had no right to do any work to correct the fault without giving
>> you an estimate and asking for your permission to continue.
>> Did you sign anything?
>>
>
> Nope, i also have thier car & if push comes to shove, i'll hide it.
can't see they have a leg to stand on legally, they did work without the
owners authorisation.
You appear to be in a strong position Nige, possibility of a deal being
done?
Ian Rawlings
> So the notion that only bailiffs can hold goods is quite mistaken.
No, it's not. You can't hold a vehicle worth thousands of pounds
until a bill of a few hundred is paid.
John Williamson
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:29:50 +0000, Ian Rawlings
> <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-31, Paul Saccani <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> So the notion that only bailiffs can hold goods is quite mistaken.
>> No, it's not. You can't hold a vehicle worth thousands of pounds
>> until a bill of a few hundred is paid.
>
>
<Snip>
>
> In my experience, there are *many* shonky repairers out there, either
> incompetent, unethical or both - but that doesn't change the reality
> of existence of liens, which are absolute (that is to say they
> outweigh all other creditors and owners) and perfectly valid
> regardless of the value of the vehicle.
>
>
How does this apply where the repairer was asked to perform *diagnostic
work only*, such as preparing a quote for repair costs, but then
repaired the item (In this case a vehicle, but possibly a TV set or
computer) without further contact with or permission from the client?
I would be inclined to believe that as no contract exists for the
repair, no lien can be held by the repairer, other than for work carried
out in direct connection with the preparation of the quote.
Just asking for future reference.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
William Black
The answer from the people who hold the vehicle will almost certainly be:
"See you in court".
Unless you're very rich indeed you'll give in because court costs will
almost certainly be higher than the vehicle is worth.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Ian Rawlings
> With all due respect, Ian, you are completely wrong.
>
> See http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/Lien-law.html for a UK applicable
> example.
Yes I've had a bit of a nose around and it's quite scary. Basically I
had some unauthorised repairs done many years ago, phoned the local
cop shop (I wouldn't do that any more now I know more about them) and
was told that the garage is no different to any other company and
can't take goods in lieu of payment. I suspect the coppers were
thinking of someone coming round my house and taking the car away
rather than hanging onto it. The garage also said that they couldn't
force me to pay, so they seem to have gotten it wrong too. Reading up
on it a bit more on various links it seems that even with unauthorised
repairs, the garage can hold onto the car until you pay for it under
protest (and insist on the invoice saying you're paying under
protest), and then you have to chase them through the courts or trade
bodies (if they are members) and prove it was unauthorised work...
That's scary.. You could put your car in for a wheel balance, come
out with a new paint job and a bill for it, and have to prove you
didn't ask for a paint job --- or lose the car.
> What's the story, do you think the value of the car determines what
> remedies a mechanic has for non-payment? Rich people don't need to
> pay the peasants for their work?
No, it was just what I'd been told, a garage holding a car of *any*
value in lieu of payment for a bill of less value doesn't seem right
at all, and I was told it wasn't legal, but it seems it was. Quite
why you decide to read all that shit about rich people into what I
said I don't know.
> That's one reason why most mechanics don't want to consent to
> unsupervised test drives before payment - that drive would extinguish
> the lien.
Hmm, may remember that ;-)
Ian Rawlings
> How does this apply where the repairer was asked to perform *diagnostic
> work only*, such as preparing a quote for repair costs, but then
> repaired the item (In this case a vehicle, but possibly a TV set or
> computer) without further contact with or permission from the client?
Have a quick google for "garage unauthorized repairs lien" and worry.
John Williamson
> On 2009-11-01, John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> How does this apply where the repairer was asked to perform *diagnostic
>> work only*, such as preparing a quote for repair costs, but then
>> repaired the item (In this case a vehicle, but possibly a TV set or
>> computer) without further contact with or permission from the client?
>
> Have a quick google for "garage unauthorized repairs lien" and worry.
>
refer to United States law.
Ian Rawlings
> Ian Rawlings wrote:
>> Have a quick google for "garage unauthorized repairs lien" and worry.
>
> But not too much, as the first couple of pages of results all seem to
> refer to United States law.
Ah sorry yes, I stuck a "uk" in there too, many of the pages were from
the same bit taken from the DTI.
GbH
Test drive by who, you or the mechanic?
I guess the mechanic, because in this case you'd not be too likely to
take it back!
hugh
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>John Williamson wrote:
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:29:50 +0000, Ian Rawlings
>>> <new...@tarcus.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-10-31, Paul Saccani <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So the notion that only bailiffs can hold goods is quite mistaken.
>>>> No, it's not. You can't hold a vehicle worth thousands of pounds
>>>> until a bill of a few hundred is paid.
>>>
>>> With all due respect, Ian, you are completely wrong.
>>>
>> <Snip>
>>>
>>> In my experience, there are *many* shonky repairers out there, either
>>> incompetent, unethical or both - but that doesn't change the reality
>>> of existence of liens, which are absolute (that is to say they
>>> outweigh all other creditors and owners) and perfectly valid
>>> regardless of the value of the vehicle.
>>>
>>>
>> How does this apply where the repairer was asked to perform
>>*diagnostic work only*, such as preparing a quote for repair costs,
>>but then repaired the item (In this case a vehicle, but possibly a TV
>>set or computer) without further contact with or permission from the
>>
>>repair, no lien can be held by the repairer, other than for work
>>carried out in direct connection with the preparation of the quote.
>> Just asking for future reference.
>>
>
>The answer from the people who hold the vehicle will almost certainly be:
>
>"See you in court".
>
>Unless you're very rich indeed you'll give in because court costs will
>almost certainly be higher than the vehicle is worth.
>
>
of �3000 BIMBW, after paying the bill to get the vehicle returned.
This is a very hairy area and one shouldn't assume that any form of
common sense will apply. A quick chat with a (no-win, no fee) solicitor
might be worthwhile
--
hugh
It may be more complicated but is it better?
John Williamson
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:59:45 +0000, John Williamson
> <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul Saccani wrote:
>
> My advice is to ensure that your repair gives written acknowledgement
> that they are not to commence work without specific authorisation.
>
That's what I do, unless I trust them.
> Of course, its different once they earn your trust.
>
> I remember one fellow who used to get his customers to sign an
> authority to "fit" a part - which he would then use as a license to do
> many thousands of dollars of extra repairs that he deemed necessary to
> ensure that what he fitted would be OK! Every few years, a customer
> would take him on and defeat him in court. But he traded as a $2
> company and would simply liquidate the company every time he lost.
> So his business would have a year behind the name, like say
> "Speccycare 1989" (with the 1989 very small), and he would form a new
> company, like "Speccycare 1993" and carry on. And he would have
> elaborate warranty conditions so he could default on his warranty.
> Every car that I saw from that workshop after an engine change had the
> coolant recovery tank connected the wrong way so that it would vent
> its contents. The average motorist seeing the coolant going down
> would top up with tap water. So if the engine failed under warranty,
> he would cite diluted coolant as voiding the warranty and get away
> with it, even in court.
>
Not in the UK. He could be sued for carrying out defective work, which
would involve an independent qualified witness saying in court that, in
this case, the coolant recovery tank had been installed incorrectly (Or
whatever other faults had been found with the original workmanship). If
the Trading Standards Office were informed, they could also prosecute
him under the criminal law, with penalties ranging from fines to
imprisonment. The Unfair Business Terms legislation could also apply here.
Unfortunately, he could still close down the business and re-open under
a changed name the following day. He could even keep the same trading
name, as Speccysavers(1990) trading as KWAK! engineering is a different
legal entity from Speccysavers(1989) trading as KWAK! engineering, and
has no obligation under the law for whatever the previous user of that
trading name did or owed.
> There are some unethical people out there - I would go so far as to
> say most in the trade do questionable things.
>
Don't we all, on occasion?
Mostly, questionable is just a matter of opinion and which side of the
fence you're on.
> On the other hand, there are some damned unethical customers too.
> Personally, I can't be bothered with all the aggravation of liens as a
> rule - I prefer ethical repeat customers who I can likewise treat
> well. So I'll generally take a reasonable loss and refuse to deal
> with that person again.
>
That makes good business sense. The best client is one you're happy to
deal with again, and they will tell their friends if they like dealing
with you.
We may be talking at cross purposes here, as I am going on my
understanding of English law, taking account of the consumer protection
legislation and systems in force here, while you sign your posts as if
you are writing from Australia, where you would be acting under
Australian law, which I believe was mostly based on English law a
century or two ago, but has differed over time.
English contract law as I learnt it many years ago requires as a
*minimum* an invitation to treat, an offer, an acceptance, performance
of the contract, and consideration. I ask you to carry out some
specified task (The invitation to treat relating to supply of goods or
labour), you offer to carry it out for me in return for an agreed
consideration, I accept your offer, you do the work or supply the goods,
and I am then bound to give you the consideration. Consideration is
normally an agreed amount of money, but could be anything, as long as
both parties agree. If you do work or supply goods that I have not asked
for or consented to you carrying out or supplying, then that work is
outside the contract, and therefore, under English contract law you have
no right to demand a consideration after the event for carrying it out.
Errors and Omissions Excepted, as it says on the bottom of every invoice
I've ever seen. All very simplified, as the bookshelf on contract law in
the last office I worked in was over a yard long.
Where difficulty can arise is in proving what each of the components
consists of, and complications introduced by consumer protection
legislation. This is *why* the bookshelf is so long. In English law, a
contract may be verbal, in which case it's your word against mine, or
written, in which case the court read the contract and deduce the
intentions of both parties from the written record, ignoring verbal
statements made by the parties.
Other cases mentioned here seem to follow United States Law, which is
different again.
I the OP's case, he can, according to my understanding under English
law, if the facts are as stated, insist on restoration of his vehicle to
its original condition, and if such is not done, sue through the courts
for such restoration to be made. He is liable only for the initially
agreed sum for the work ordered. He can also in theory apply to the
courts for compensation for inconvenience and loss caused by the
repairer's actions. Say, any extra costs incurred by having to hire a
replacement vehicle while the unwanted work was carried out and getting
the situation rectified, whether by the original repairer or another person.
If he takes the easy option, and pays, he can notify the repairer that
he has paid under protest, and will be seeking restitution later in
court. The threat often works wonders with suppliers, especially if you
have a valid claim that you can inform the local Trading Standards
Office about.
I'm not a lawyer, but studied contract law as part of my studies many
years ago, and if anyone can tell me I'm remembering incorrectly, I'd be
glad to know.
William Black
> One thing that has changed recently over here is the requirement to be
> licensed as a repairer, and the establishment of formal government
> oversight and a Motor Vehicle Repairers Board, incorporating formal
> dispute resolution for customers. I doubt that it will have much
> effect on the systematically dishonest, they'll find a way around it,
> but that dispute resolution mechanism also has the ability to
> compensate customers, even if the money can't be obtained from a
> repairer.
That sounds horribly like the system in some US states that requires
just about everyone to have some sort of expensive license to practice
their trade.
It's a way of stopping poor people setting up in business.
Dave Liquorice
> That sounds horribly like the system in some US states that requires
> just about everyone to have some sort of expensive license to practice
> their trade.
>
> It's a way of stopping poor people setting up in business.
And does bugger all to stop the real cowboys. Much is just extra
burden on the honest trader. There does need to be some regulation
and training but these days its just going to far.
--
Cheers
Dave.