Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Unauthorised work by garage. How to proceed?
905 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim+
May 25, 2015, 4:28:29 PM5/25/15
to
My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
latter).
The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
Tim
recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
latter).
The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
Tim
GB
May 25, 2015, 4:30:40 PM5/25/15
to
did this say?
Roger Hayter
May 25, 2015, 4:43:57 PM5/25/15
to
recollection of what was said? It is possible, though perhaps sharp
practice, to ask the customer to agree in advance to any work that may
be necessary. I have been known to agree that with small garage
proprietors I knew and trusted. And vehicles I had a clear idea about
the condition of!
--
Roger Hayter
Tim Watts
May 25, 2015, 5:21:39 PM5/25/15
to
bulb at MOT time without prior authorisation and checking the costs with
the customer.
Roger Hayter
May 25, 2015, 5:45:40 PM5/25/15
to
point of being positively disreputable may not be actionable. On the
other hand, if they claim that the customer verbally agreed to
open-ended costs they might have the disappointment of a County Court
judge disbelieving them when the customer says differently. That is why
it is important the customer has a clear recollection of what was said,
or at least of what was not said.
Of course, to take any form of action would require a report on what
work was done on the car and the extent to which it was likely to be
necessary, and worth what was charged. Which might prove inconclusive.
I really don't think there would be significant damages for doing work
that was necessary at a reasonable price without permission, even though
it would be unlawful. I would be very pleased to be told I was wrong on
this!
--
Roger Hayter
Fredxxx
May 25, 2015, 6:45:23 PM5/25/15
to
So while I might pay any bill for parts at the rates I would pay, not
retail, I would certainly not entertain any labour charges.
Rob Morley
May 25, 2015, 6:54:14 PM5/25/15
to
On Mon, 25 May 2015 22:38:56 +0100
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:
> I really don't think there would be significant damages for doing work
> that was necessary at a reasonable price without permission
You're assuming that the work was actually necessary, and not just an
ro...@hayter.org (Roger Hayter) wrote:
> I really don't think there would be significant damages for doing work
> that was necessary at a reasonable price without permission
excuse to use some parts they had lying around. Or maybe they had two
similar cars in for work, and mistakenly replaced on one car what
should have been replaced on the other.
Roger Hayter
May 25, 2015, 7:02:26 PM5/25/15
to
trying to establish whether the work was necessary, or indeed done. I
went on to say what the situation would be if you couldn't prove it
wasn't. I share your suspicion that it might not have been. It is
embarrassing, I find, to demand to have the defective parts, and clearly
needs to be done in advance (or they will say they''ve scrapped them)
but it is a good idea with an unknown garage.
--
Roger Hayter
Tim+
May 25, 2015, 7:08:16 PM5/25/15
to
Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> On 25/05/15 21:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>> latter).
>>>
>>> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> On 25/05/15 21:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>> latter).
>>>
>>> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>>>
>>> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>> Has she got a copy of the agreement she signed or, if none, a clear
>> recollection of what was said? It is possible, though perhaps sharp
>> practice, to ask the customer to agree in advance to any work that may
>> be necessary. I have been known to agree that with small garage
>> proprietors I knew and trusted. And vehicles I had a clear idea about
>> the condition of!
>>
>
> Legality aside, no professional car shop would change much more than a
> bulb at MOT time without prior authorisation and checking the costs with
> the customer.
Indeed. I've always been contacted before any significant work is
>>>
>>> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>> Has she got a copy of the agreement she signed or, if none, a clear
>> recollection of what was said? It is possible, though perhaps sharp
>> practice, to ask the customer to agree in advance to any work that may
>> be necessary. I have been known to agree that with small garage
>> proprietors I knew and trusted. And vehicles I had a clear idea about
>> the condition of!
>>
>
> Legality aside, no professional car shop would change much more than a
> bulb at MOT time without prior authorisation and checking the costs with
> the customer.
undertaken. I don't know all the details yet. Will make further enquiries.
Tim
David L. Martel
May 25, 2015, 7:08:29 PM5/25/15
to
Tim+,
Most likely she'll need to pay the bill to recover her car. After that
she should consider Money Claim On-Line. Since this garage was recommended
she should express her disappointment to the friend.
Why is this your concern? How old is your daughter?
Good luck,
Dave M.
Most likely she'll need to pay the bill to recover her car. After that
she should consider Money Claim On-Line. Since this garage was recommended
she should express her disappointment to the friend.
Why is this your concern? How old is your daughter?
Good luck,
Dave M.
tabb...@gmail.com
May 25, 2015, 7:08:50 PM5/25/15
to
NT
Alex Heney
May 25, 2015, 7:09:11 PM5/25/15
to
On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
that may be done has to be done by her.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Death sneaks up on you as a windshield sneaks up on a bug.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
wrote:
It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
that may be done has to be done by her.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Death sneaks up on you as a windshield sneaks up on a bug.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Roger Hayter
May 25, 2015, 8:42:14 PM5/25/15
to
Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> >recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> >informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> >replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> >latter).
> >
> >The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> >advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
> >
> >Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
> >I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> >isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
> >
>
> There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
>
> It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
> that may be done has to be done by her.
And she is perfectly entitled to appoint an agent to act on her behalf.
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> >recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> >informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> >replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> >latter).
> >
> >The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> >advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
> >
> >Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
> >I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> >isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
> >
>
> There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
>
> It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
> that may be done has to be done by her.
--
Roger Hayter
Nightjar <"cpb"@
May 26, 2015, 1:49:06 AM5/26/15
to
On 25/05/2015 20:04, Tim+ wrote:
from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and see whether you think they
might apply:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284442/oft1008.pdf
--
Colin Bignell
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 2:50:45 AM5/26/15
to
On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com put finger to
keyboard and typed:
The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
that), it cannot possibly be theft.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
keyboard and typed:
matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
that), it cannot possibly be theft.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 2:51:11 AM5/26/15
to
On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:49:17 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>latter).
>>
>>The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>>advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>>
>>Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>
>
>There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
>
>It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
>that may be done has to be done by her.
Up to a point, yes. But there's no reason why she shouldn't be accompanied
by someone whom she authorises to speak on her behalf.
typed:
>On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>latter).
>>
>>The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>>advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>>
>>Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>
>
>There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
>
>It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
>that may be done has to be done by her.
by someone whom she authorises to speak on her behalf.
Roger Hayter
May 26, 2015, 3:52:03 AM5/26/15
to
diminish the role of solicitors.
--
Roger Hayter
Peter Parry
May 26, 2015, 4:48:55 AM5/26/15
to
>Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
Nothing until you have established the facts. It seems improbable that
>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
agreement from the owner beforehand.
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 5:23:27 AM5/26/15
to
there are many factors, where the cars driven, how often, is it
regulary serviced, how often has the brake fluid been changed not
always part of servicing shedules outside of main dealerships even what
part the country you live in.
newshound
May 26, 2015, 5:23:49 AM5/26/15
to
Roland Perry
May 26, 2015, 5:47:05 AM5/26/15
to
In message <8jc8mah1ed9jejevt...@4ax.com>, at 09:48:43 on
Tue, 26 May 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:
other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 26 May 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:
>It seems improbable that
>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>agreement from the owner beforehand.
I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>agreement from the owner beforehand.
other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
May 26, 2015, 6:35:22 AM5/26/15
to
In message <csitt9...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:49:29 on Tue, 26 May
2015, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> remarked:
>the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
Had you pre-authorised some sort of 'floor limit' to fund such repairs,
or did they have to phone for approval?
--
Roland Perry
2015, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> remarked:
>>>It seems improbable that
>>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>
>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>> (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>> repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
>
>Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times known
>>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>
>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>> (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>> repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
>
>the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
Had you pre-authorised some sort of 'floor limit' to fund such repairs,
or did they have to phone for approval?
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 26, 2015, 6:36:22 AM5/26/15
to
Huge wrote:
And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
bulbs,washer/wipers, etc. ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no
"mischief" in the tester fixing the fault "en passant" so long as the
extra charge (if any) has been authorised.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
> Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times
> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
Ditto.
> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
bulbs,washer/wipers, etc. ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no
"mischief" in the tester fixing the fault "en passant" so long as the
extra charge (if any) has been authorised.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Roland Perry
May 26, 2015, 8:14:52 AM5/26/15
to
In message <mk1i8r$l5t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:17 on Tue, 26 May
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no "mischief" in the tester fixing
>the fault "en passant" so long as the extra charge (if any) has been
>authorised.
Unless you want to level the playing field so that some testing stations
which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It seems improbable that
>>>> a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry
>>>> out £600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without
>>>> seeking agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>>
>>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a
>>> test (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle,
>>> do the repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of
>>> charge).
>>
>> Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times
>> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
>
>Ditto.
>
>And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
>days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
>bulbs,washer/wipers, etc.
There's no problem with doing a "pre-MOT" check and remedial action.
>>>> a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry
>>>> out £600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without
>>>> seeking agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>>
>>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a
>>> test (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle,
>>> do the repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of
>>> charge).
>>
>> Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times
>> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
>
>Ditto.
>
>And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
>days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
>bulbs,washer/wipers, etc.
>ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no "mischief" in the tester fixing
>the fault "en passant" so long as the extra charge (if any) has been
>authorised.
which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 9:34:57 AM5/26/15
to
> Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times
> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
My testing station does this routinely with lamps and wipers, they work
> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
on the basis it saves them money and stops the inconvenience to the
customer of having to book a retest.
Nick
May 26, 2015, 9:36:21 AM5/26/15
to
On 26/05/2015 07:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>
> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
>
Out of curiosity what legal right does a garage to hold a car in lieu of
>> I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>
> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
>
payment. If they do not have a legal right why would it not be theft?
zaax
May 26, 2015, 9:37:14 AM5/26/15
to
On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 9:28:29 PM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> latter).
>
> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>
> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> latter).
>
> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>
> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>
> Tim
> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>
Very expensive for this work, the garage might have changed hand since her friend used it. Pay and have the likes of the AA to do a report to check if the work has actually been done / was needed.
Go to Money claim on-line for money back. The holding of the car was stolen (by the garage) and the police should have got involved, also local trading standards
Rob Morley
May 26, 2015, 9:50:55 AM5/26/15
to
If the mechanic believes he's owed the money, and he expects that at
some point the owner will regain possession, then it's not theft.
Message has been deleted
Robin
May 26, 2015, 10:39:01 AM5/26/15
to
"level the playing field" given there is no law against leaving a car
for an MoT test with an instruction such as "do any work needed to pass
the test up to a cost of £x" with a tester who does do repairs; and
eqaully no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
people (me among them) may prefer to use?
And I still can't see anything, anywhere that says they can't.
Stuart A. Bronstein
May 26, 2015, 10:45:23 AM5/26/15
to
Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity what legal right does a garage to hold a car
>> in lieu of payment. If they do not have a legal right why would
>> it not be theft?
>
> Lacks a dishonest motive, lacks the intention to permanently
> deprive. If the mechanic believes he's owed the money, and he
> expects that at some point the owner will regain possession,
> then it's not theft.
There's not specific legislation allowing a mechanic to have a lien
>> Out of curiosity what legal right does a garage to hold a car
>> in lieu of payment. If they do not have a legal right why would
>> it not be theft?
>
> Lacks a dishonest motive, lacks the intention to permanently
> deprive. If the mechanic believes he's owed the money, and he
> expects that at some point the owner will regain possession,
> then it's not theft.
to ensure payment for work performed?
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Message has been deleted
Norman Wells
May 26, 2015, 11:13:50 AM5/26/15
to
"Nick" <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mk1o9b$dna$1...@dont-email.me...
It's called a 'lien'. You can look it up.
news:mk1o9b$dna$1...@dont-email.me...
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 11:14:15 AM5/26/15
to
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it.
The garage has no intention of depriving the owner of the vehicle
permenantly.
There is nothing to prevent the owner using a spare key and driving the
car off the forcourt
tabb...@gmail.com
May 26, 2015, 11:15:55 AM5/26/15
to
NT
tabb...@gmail.com
May 26, 2015, 11:17:00 AM5/26/15
to
On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 07:50:45 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT), nt put finger to
'In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'
if car not returned on request if fits that.
'The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property
if not returned on request if fits that.
'which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.'
if not returned on request if fits that too.
' 1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.'
well, it fits that too if the vehicle is not returned to the owner.
Time will tell if that's the course of action that follows, but I very much expect so.
'In R v Turner,[24] the owner removed his car from the forecourt of a garage where it had been left for collection after repair. He intended to avoid paying the bill. There was an appropriation of the car because it had been physically removed but...'
'Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned.'
NT
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT), nt put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
> >On Monday, 25 May 2015 21:28:29 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
> >> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> >> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> >> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> >> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> >> latter).
> >>
> >> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> >> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
> >>
> >> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
> >> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> >> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
> >>
> >> Tim
> >
> >I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>
> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
A quick google found, FWIW...
>
> >On Monday, 25 May 2015 21:28:29 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
> >> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
> >> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
> >> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
> >> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
> >> latter).
> >>
> >> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
> >> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
> >>
> >> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
> >> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
> >> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
> >>
> >> Tim
> >
> >I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>
> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
'In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'
if car not returned on request if fits that.
'The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property
if not returned on request if fits that.
'which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.'
if not returned on request if fits that too.
' 1.-(1) A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.'
well, it fits that too if the vehicle is not returned to the owner.
Time will tell if that's the course of action that follows, but I very much expect so.
'In R v Turner,[24] the owner removed his car from the forecourt of a garage where it had been left for collection after repair. He intended to avoid paying the bill. There was an appropriation of the car because it had been physically removed but...'
'Section 6 "with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it" is sufficiently flexible to include situations where the property is later returned.'
NT
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
May 26, 2015, 11:21:24 AM5/26/15
to
In message <mk20f5$f2t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:38:36 on Tue, 26 May
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> Unless you want to level the playing field so that some testing
>> stations which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
>
>How does denying testers the right to change bulbs etc as they go along
>"level the playing field" given there is no law against leaving a car
>for an MoT test with an instruction such as "do any work needed to pass
>the test up to a cost of £x" with a tester who does do repairs; and
>eqaully no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
>people (me among them) may prefer to use?
It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>> stations which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
>
>How does denying testers the right to change bulbs etc as they go along
>"level the playing field" given there is no law against leaving a car
>for an MoT test with an instruction such as "do any work needed to pass
>the test up to a cost of £x" with a tester who does do repairs; and
>eqaully no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
>people (me among them) may prefer to use?
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Peter Parry
May 26, 2015, 11:46:47 AM5/26/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:40:14 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
> and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
Unless you can produce some evidence that carrying out several hundred
> Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
> and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
pounds of work when only an MOT was asked for is widespread then
alleging it is so will merely diminish your case. The same is true
for allegations of theft when there hasn't been any.
>From Trading Standards :-
"REPAIRS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHOUT AUTHORISATION
This can be a contentious matter, especially with verbal contracts, as
it can be very difficult to prove that the garage carried out the work
without your authority. It will generally come down to your word
against the word of the garage. If the garage has carried out
unauthorised work, you could ask the garage to put the vehicle back to
its original condition. This course of action, however, can create
problems, especially if it would leave your car in a worse condition
or even render it unroadworthy. The garage may also refuse to undo the
work or release the car without payment. If improvements have been
made, the garage is entitled to exercise a lien over the car (this is
a legal right to hold disputed goods until payment is made). In these
circumstances, the only way you can recover possession of the car is
to 'pay under protest' and to pursue your claim for reimbursement -
it's important to seek advice about paying under protest from the
Citizens Advice consumer service .
The garage may be a member of a trade association with a conciliation,
mediation, or arbitration service, which can help sort out your
complaint. You may have to pay for using an arbitration service, but
conciliation is usually free. Discuss the service offered with the
trade association before committing yourself. "
In most of these cases the problem is not fraud but usually down to
something as simple as a mechanic thinking the work had been
authorised when it hadn't. A non-confrontational chat with the
service manager is often more productive than going in with all guns
blazing (especially if half the bullets are blanks).
Message has been deleted
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 1:06:42 PM5/26/15
to
August West wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing to prevent the owner using a spare key and driving
> > the car off the forcourt
>
> Actually, there is. Removing a vehicle which is being held under lien
> is in itelf theft. It's held in possesion by the mechanic as
> security, and removing it is as much theft as removing a pawned item
> from a pawnbroker would be.
If the works are unauthorised and debt disputed then no lien exists. In
such a position the mechanic can not prevent removal
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing to prevent the owner using a spare key and driving
> > the car off the forcourt
>
> is in itelf theft. It's held in possesion by the mechanic as
> security, and removing it is as much theft as removing a pawned item
> from a pawnbroker would be.
If the works are unauthorised and debt disputed then no lien exists. In
such a position the mechanic can not prevent removal
Message has been deleted
Robin
May 26, 2015, 2:37:13 PM5/26/15
to
waive any re-test fee which would otherwise apply. But you may of
course be right that someone has decided it's logical to require a
tester to finish the test, issue the failure notice, change the bulb,
re-test, and then issue the certificate; and some bit of law separate
from the testing manual which requires it.
Pelican
May 26, 2015, 3:23:42 PM5/26/15
to
"August West" <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote in message
news:87y4kbw...@news2.kororaa.com...
> Mine is R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
I'm afraid not. In that case, there was dishonesty, because the person who
took the car was attempting to avoid paying for the repairs. lt is not
dishonesty to take your own property believing that it is yours to take.
Roland Perry
May 26, 2015, 3:24:23 PM5/26/15
to
In message <mk2e90$bk5$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:15 on Tue, 26 May
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>
>The logic of your argument escapes me
There are testers who don't do repairs.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>
>The logic of your argument escapes me
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 3:34:59 PM5/26/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:37:26 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com put finger to
Wales" to discover how that very broad principle is actually applied in law
here.
>if car not returned on request if fits that.
Not once you've read the actual definition used in English law, it doesn't.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
keyboard and typed:
>On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 07:50:45 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT), nt put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >On Monday, 25 May 2015 21:28:29 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
>> >> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>> >> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>> >> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>> >> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>> >> latter).
>> >>
>> >> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>> >> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>> >> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>> >> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>> >>
>> >> Tim
>> >
>> >I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>>
>> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
>> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
>> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
>
>
>A quick google found, FWIW...
>
>
>'In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'
I suggest you go back to that page and click on the link for "England and
>On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 07:50:45 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 May 2015 14:52:35 -0700 (PDT), nt put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >On Monday, 25 May 2015 21:28:29 UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
>> >> My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>> >> recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>> >> informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>> >> replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>> >> latter).
>> >>
>> >> The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>> >> advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>> >> I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>> >> isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>> >>
>> >> Tim
>> >
>> >I'd say I've not authorised any work and have no evidence that it needed doing. Return the car or theft will be reported to the police right now. IANAL. I've come across this scam before.
>>
>> The police would simply tell you, entirely correctly, that it's a civil
>> matter. Even if deliberate (and we are a very long way from establishing
>> that), it cannot possibly be theft.
>
>
>A quick google found, FWIW...
>
>
>'In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it'
Wales" to discover how that very broad principle is actually applied in law
here.
>if car not returned on request if fits that.
Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 3:36:57 PM5/26/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:38:59 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <8jc8mah1ed9jejevt...@4ax.com>, at 09:48:43 on
>Tue, 26 May 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:
going to cause it to fail before doing the formal test.
typed:
>In message <8jc8mah1ed9jejevt...@4ax.com>, at 09:48:43 on
>Tue, 26 May 2015, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> remarked:
>>It seems improbable that
>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>
>I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
No, but the garage can do a pre-test check, and then fix anything which is
>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>
>I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
going to cause it to fail before doing the formal test.
Francis Davey
May 26, 2015, 3:51:57 PM5/26/15
to
Le mardi 26 mai 2015 15:56:15 UTC+1, August West a écrit :
>
> It's Common Law, I believe (certainly is in Scotland).
Yes, mechanics' lien.
Francis
>
> It's Common Law, I believe (certainly is in Scotland).
Yes, mechanics' lien.
Francis
Robin
May 26, 2015, 3:55:42 PM5/26/15
to
no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
people (me among them) may prefer to use"? I know there's no law
against telling people what they know already but it rarely advances the
argument.
Message has been deleted
Vir Campestris
May 26, 2015, 4:40:11 PM5/26/15
to
On 26/05/2015 19:34, Robin wrote:
> The logic of your argument escapes me given it is open to any tester to
> waive any re-test fee which would otherwise apply. But you may of
> course be right that someone has decided it's logical to require a
> tester to finish the test, issue the failure notice, change the bulb,
> re-test, and then issue the certificate; and some bit of law separate
> from the testing manual which requires it.
When I took my car in for its MOT this year, during some not very nice
> The logic of your argument escapes me given it is open to any tester to
> waive any re-test fee which would otherwise apply. But you may of
> course be right that someone has decided it's logical to require a
> tester to finish the test, issue the failure notice, change the bulb,
> re-test, and then issue the certificate; and some bit of law separate
> from the testing manual which requires it.
weather, they asked me if the rear number plate was clean. It was - I'd
done some pre-test checks. They then explained that they had an
inspector in, and were having to do everything by the book.
Which apparently precludes them from even using a damp cloth!
Andy
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 5:14:35 PM5/26/15
to
> And your authority for that is?
> Mine is R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
That involves an act of dishonesty, the works were authorised, the
> Mine is R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
customer took the opportunity to drive the car off in an attempt to
avoid paying for services requested.
The op stated that the works were not requested so legally the
mechanic has no lien on the vehicle apart from the cost of the MOT
steve robinson
May 26, 2015, 5:16:06 PM5/26/15
to
August West wrote:
> We are talking about a vehicle being held in lien.
A mechanic can only hold a lien over a vehicle if the customer has
authorised the works.
If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have not
entered into a contract, the customer could insist the mechanic
reinstates the old pipework
A mechanic can only hold a lien over a vehicle if the customer has
authorised the works.
If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have not
entered into a contract, the customer could insist the mechanic
reinstates the old pipework
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 5:17:09 PM5/26/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 16:44:49 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:40:14 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
>> and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
>
>Unless you can produce some evidence that carrying out several hundred
>pounds of work when only an MOT was asked for is widespread then
>alleging it is so will merely diminish your case. The same is true
>for allegations of theft when there hasn't been any.
Indeed.
[Snip excellent advice from Trading Standards]
>In most of these cases the problem is not fraud but usually down to
>something as simple as a mechanic thinking the work had been
>authorised when it hadn't. A non-confrontational chat with the
>service manager is often more productive than going in with all guns
>blazing (especially if half the bullets are blanks).
Very much so.
One of the more common causes of this kind of situation is where the work
itself is carried out by a different person to the one who took the
booking, and there has simply been a failure of communication between them.
typed:
>On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:40:14 -0700 (PDT), tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
>> and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
>
>Unless you can produce some evidence that carrying out several hundred
>pounds of work when only an MOT was asked for is widespread then
>alleging it is so will merely diminish your case. The same is true
>for allegations of theft when there hasn't been any.
[Snip excellent advice from Trading Standards]
>In most of these cases the problem is not fraud but usually down to
>something as simple as a mechanic thinking the work had been
>authorised when it hadn't. A non-confrontational chat with the
>service manager is often more productive than going in with all guns
>blazing (especially if half the bullets are blanks).
One of the more common causes of this kind of situation is where the work
itself is carried out by a different person to the one who took the
booking, and there has simply been a failure of communication between them.
Mark Goodge
May 26, 2015, 5:17:40 PM5/26/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:08:14 +0100, August West put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>
agreed in advance the price of those repairs. So there was no dispute over
either the work or the debt; it was clear that Turner was simply intending
to avoid paying it. And when questioned by the police he "told lie after
lie to them", claiming initially that the car had never been anywhere near
the garage at all. When this was disproved, he then claimed that the garage
owner had given permission for him to take the car prior to payment. All in
all, this must have been one of the easiest determinations of dishonesty
ever to have come before a jury. The only point on which the case turned
was whether or not his actions amounted to appropriation.
That is different to the situation described by the OP, where there is a
genuine dispute over the alleged debt. If a contractor alleges a debt, and
the client has valid and honest reason to dispute the debt, then the
contractor cannot automatically rely on common law to exercise a lien over
the client's property in order to enforce the debt. It may, instead, be
necessary to release the property back to the customer and then pursue the
debt via other means. And if the customer takes his property back into his
own posession without the contractor's permission, then that will not
constitute theft if the intent is, not to avoid paying an undisputed debt,
but simply to avoid the inconvenience of being without the property while a
disputed debt remains in dispute.
typed:
>
>And your authority for that is?
>Mine is R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
But Turner agreed in advance that the work was to be carried out, and also
>Mine is R v Turner (No 2) [1971] 1 WLR 901
agreed in advance the price of those repairs. So there was no dispute over
either the work or the debt; it was clear that Turner was simply intending
to avoid paying it. And when questioned by the police he "told lie after
lie to them", claiming initially that the car had never been anywhere near
the garage at all. When this was disproved, he then claimed that the garage
owner had given permission for him to take the car prior to payment. All in
all, this must have been one of the easiest determinations of dishonesty
ever to have come before a jury. The only point on which the case turned
was whether or not his actions amounted to appropriation.
That is different to the situation described by the OP, where there is a
genuine dispute over the alleged debt. If a contractor alleges a debt, and
the client has valid and honest reason to dispute the debt, then the
contractor cannot automatically rely on common law to exercise a lien over
the client's property in order to enforce the debt. It may, instead, be
necessary to release the property back to the customer and then pursue the
debt via other means. And if the customer takes his property back into his
own posession without the contractor's permission, then that will not
constitute theft if the intent is, not to avoid paying an undisputed debt,
but simply to avoid the inconvenience of being without the property while a
disputed debt remains in dispute.
Roger Hayter
May 26, 2015, 5:26:26 PM5/26/15
to
--
Roger Hayter
Message has been deleted
Roger Hayter
May 26, 2015, 5:29:17 PM5/26/15
to
achieve? You may say that he 'knows' he shouldn't have to pay for the
repairs at all, or wait to have them reversed, but I very much doubt if
that is a reasonable belief.
--
Roger Hayter
Message has been deleted
Robin
May 26, 2015, 5:53:02 PM5/26/15
to
August West wrote:
> suggets that if I dispite any situation where a lien could exist, the
> lien can fall, simply on my say so that I dispite the debt. Which
> make a lien pretty useless.
Quite.
The normal route is to "pay under protest" in order to regain possession
of car and then take action against garage. See eg
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/cars-and-other-vehicles/garage-repairs-and-services/disputing-a-bill-for-garage-repairs/
> The entity calling itself Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> That is different to the situation described by the OP, where there
>> is a genuine dispute over the alleged debt. If a contractor alleges
>> a debt, and the client has valid and honest reason to dispute the
>> debt, then the contractor cannot automatically rely on common law to
>> exercise a lien over the client's property in order to enforce the
>> debt. It may, instead, be necessary to release the property back to
>> the customer and then pursue the debt via other means.
>
> And what's your authoriyy for that? After all, it does ragther
>>
>> That is different to the situation described by the OP, where there
>> is a genuine dispute over the alleged debt. If a contractor alleges
>> a debt, and the client has valid and honest reason to dispute the
>> debt, then the contractor cannot automatically rely on common law to
>> exercise a lien over the client's property in order to enforce the
>> debt. It may, instead, be necessary to release the property back to
>> the customer and then pursue the debt via other means.
>
> suggets that if I dispite any situation where a lien could exist, the
> lien can fall, simply on my say so that I dispite the debt. Which
> make a lien pretty useless.
Quite.
The normal route is to "pay under protest" in order to regain possession
of car and then take action against garage. See eg
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/cars-and-other-vehicles/garage-repairs-and-services/disputing-a-bill-for-garage-repairs/
Robin
May 26, 2015, 5:54:18 PM5/26/15
to
to "pass after rectification at the station". The tester is supposed to
finish the test but can then fix minor defects like a bulb - or dirty
number plate - within an hour and issue a VTS20 and VTS30 all in one go.
But no one can tell me why the tester couldn't just wipe a wet rag
across your plate before failing it rather than after :(
Pelican
May 26, 2015, 7:01:30 PM5/26/15
to
"Roger Hayter" <ro...@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:1m51uy6.1rts9n3xfs9dvN%ro...@hayter.org...
v Turner (No 2) isn't authority for this situation.
Pelican
May 26, 2015, 7:05:43 PM5/26/15
to
news:1m51viw.1ajyoty1d5vpy4N%ro...@hayter.org...
Why not? It's his car. A lien basically derives from an agreement rather
than work having been done, and certainly not unauthorised work. QED. And
R v Turner (No 2) isn't authority for the proposition being advanced.
than work having been done, and certainly not unauthorised work. QED. And
R v Turner (No 2) isn't authority for the proposition being advanced.
Alex Heney
May 27, 2015, 2:16:04 AM5/27/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 07:39:28 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:49:17 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>>It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
>>that may be done has to be done by her.
>
>Up to a point, yes. But there's no reason why she shouldn't be accompanied
>by someone whom she authorises to speak on her behalf.
Absolutely.
But any legal action has to be initiated by her - and this being
uk.legal.moderated, I assume he was asking for advice on what legal
action he should take (or whether he should at all, of course).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I distinctly remember forgetting that.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 2015 23:49:17 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard and
>typed:
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 2015 20:04:49 +0100, Tim+ <timdow...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>>recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>>informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>>replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>>latter).
>>>
>>>The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>>>advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>>>
>>>Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>>
>>
>>There is nothing *you* should (or even can) do.
>>
>>>My daughter recently put her car into the garage for an MOT to a locally
>>>recommended garage. On phoning the garage later in the day she was
>>>informed that the car wasn't ready as all the brake pipes had to be
>>>replaced as well as the "suspension". (No idea what was involved in the
>>>latter).
>>>
>>>The bill for all this was over £600. At no point was she contacted to
>>>advise her of the work necessary or the probable cost of repairs.
>>>
>>>Not at all happy about this. The car is not an old clunker by any means and
>>>I am doubtful that much (or any) of the work was necessary although that
>>>isn't really my main objection. What should I do?
>>>
>>
>>
>>It is your daughter's car, and her contract with the garage, anything
>>that may be done has to be done by her.
>
>Up to a point, yes. But there's no reason why she shouldn't be accompanied
>by someone whom she authorises to speak on her behalf.
Absolutely.
But any legal action has to be initiated by her - and this being
uk.legal.moderated, I assume he was asking for advice on what legal
action he should take (or whether he should at all, of course).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I distinctly remember forgetting that.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Alex Heney
May 27, 2015, 2:16:49 AM5/27/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 20:21:56 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
We all know that.
But the fact that the law allows - even *requires* re-tests to be free
if the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs means there
is already such bias.
Allowing the testers to carry out minor repairs as they go will make
NO difference to that.
wrote:
But the fact that the law allows - even *requires* re-tests to be free
if the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs means there
is already such bias.
Allowing the testers to carry out minor repairs as they go will make
NO difference to that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A Bugless Program is an Abstract Theoretical Concept.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 27, 2015, 2:16:59 AM5/27/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 16:13:49 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <mk20f5$f2t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:38:36 on Tue, 26 May
>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
site as the MOT is carried out at.
Whereas on the contrary, the MOT system has always allowed for free
re-tests when the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs
and retesting.
So the system has always encouraged using stations which also do
repairs.
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/retests
wrote:
>In message <mk20f5$f2t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:38:36 on Tue, 26 May
>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> Unless you want to level the playing field so that some testing
>>> stations which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
>>
>>How does denying testers the right to change bulbs etc as they go along
>>"level the playing field" given there is no law against leaving a car
>>for an MoT test with an instruction such as "do any work needed to pass
>>the test up to a cost of £x" with a tester who does do repairs; and
>>eqaully no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
>>> stations which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
>>
>>How does denying testers the right to change bulbs etc as they go along
>>"level the playing field" given there is no law against leaving a car
>>for an MoT test with an instruction such as "do any work needed to pass
>>the test up to a cost of £x" with a tester who does do repairs; and
>>people (me among them) may prefer to use?
>
>
>It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
The only way to prevent that would be to not allow repairs on the same
site as the MOT is carried out at.
Whereas on the contrary, the MOT system has always allowed for free
re-tests when the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs
and retesting.
So the system has always encouraged using stations which also do
repairs.
https://www.gov.uk/getting-an-mot/retests
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Death is 99 per cent fatal to laboratory rats.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 27, 2015, 2:17:11 AM5/27/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 12:59:00 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <mk1i8r$l5t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:17 on Tue, 26 May
>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
>>
>>Ditto.
>>
>>And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
>>days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
>>bulbs,washer/wipers, etc.
>
>There's no problem with doing a "pre-MOT" check and remedial action.
>
>>ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no "mischief" in the tester fixing
>>the fault "en passant" so long as the extra charge (if any) has been
>>authorised.
during the test, or done after the initial test, followed by a retest
of the failing parts.
wrote:
>In message <mk1i8r$l5t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:36:17 on Tue, 26 May
>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> It seems improbable that
>>>>> a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry
>>>>> out £600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without
>>>>> seeking agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a
>>>> test (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle,
>>>> do the repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of
>>>> charge).
>>>
>>> Even if it is the case that it is forbidden, I have several times
>>>>> a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry
>>>>> out £600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without
>>>>> seeking agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>>>
>>>> I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>>> other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a
>>>> test (eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle,
>>>> do the repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of
>>>> charge).
>>>
>>> known the testing garage to do exactly what you describe.
>>
>>Ditto.
>>
>>And I can't recall any such rule in the MoT inspection manual from the
>>days when I used to [try to] do pre-MoT checks on more than just
>>bulbs,washer/wipers, etc.
>
>There's no problem with doing a "pre-MOT" check and remedial action.
>
>>ISTM it'd be an odd rule as there's no "mischief" in the tester fixing
>>the fault "en passant" so long as the extra charge (if any) has been
>>authorised.
>
>Unless you want to level the playing field so that some testing stations
>which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
They are "disadvantaged" exactly as much, whether the repairs are done
>Unless you want to level the playing field so that some testing stations
>which only do testing, and not repairs, aren't disadvantaged.
during the test, or done after the initial test, followed by a retest
of the failing parts.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Status Symbol: n. Something that you don't want, that you buy with money that you don't have, to impress people that you don't know
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 27, 2015, 2:17:31 AM5/27/15
to
On Tue, 26 May 2015 04:00:38 -0700 (PDT), zaax <zaa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>The holding of the car was stolen (by the garage) and the police should have got involved, also local trading standards
Why on earth do you believe there may have been any theft involved, or
any cause for police involvement?
Theft requires dishonesty, which there is no evidence of here, and
also an intention to permanently deprive, which there is clear
evidence was NOT the case.
wrote:
>The holding of the car was stolen (by the garage) and the police should have got involved, also local trading standards
Why on earth do you believe there may have been any theft involved, or
any cause for police involvement?
Theft requires dishonesty, which there is no evidence of here, and
also an intention to permanently deprive, which there is clear
evidence was NOT the case.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
They told me I was gullible ... and I believed them!
Alex Heney, Global Villager
tabb...@gmail.com
May 27, 2015, 2:18:01 AM5/27/15
to
On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 16:46:47 UTC+1, Peter Parry wrote:
> The same is true
> for allegations of theft when there hasn't been any.
I've never claimed there has been theft. What I said is that if the garage keeps hold of the vehicle and won't return it, then there may be theft. And its what I'd expect to happen next in a situation like this, indefinite retention of the vehicle.
> >From Trading Standards :-
>
> "REPAIRS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHOUT AUTHORISATION
> This can be a contentious matter, especially with verbal contracts, as
> it can be very difficult to prove that the garage carried out the work
> without your authority. It will generally come down to your word
> against the word of the garage. If the garage has carried out
> unauthorised work, you could ask the garage to put the vehicle back to
> its original condition. This course of action, however, can create
> problems, especially if it would leave your car in a worse condition
> or even render it unroadworthy. The garage may also refuse to undo the
> work or release the car without payment. If improvements have been
> made, the garage is entitled to exercise a lien over the car (this is
> a legal right to hold disputed goods until payment is made). In these
> circumstances, the only way you can recover possession of the car is
> to 'pay under protest' and to pursue your claim for reimbursement -
> it's important to seek advice about paying under protest from the
> Citizens Advice consumer service .
>
> The garage may be a member of a trade association with a conciliation,
> mediation, or arbitration service, which can help sort out your
> complaint. You may have to pay for using an arbitration service, but
> conciliation is usually free. Discuss the service offered with the
> trade association before committing yourself. "
At the end of the day no purchase contract has been entered into (the OP says), and the garage has nothing signed to say it has. Add to that the fact that IIRC the car's value doesn't warrant such work, and its hard to see how a small claim case by the garage would be likely to succeed.
> In most of these cases the problem is not fraud but usually down to
> something as simple as a mechanic thinking the work had been
> authorised when it hadn't. A non-confrontational chat with the
> service manager is often more productive than going in with all guns
> blazing (especially if half the bullets are blanks).
Well, its not been my experience. There are good capable honest garages out there, but IME there are more that are crooks and incompetents.
NT
> On Tue, 26 May 2015 06:40:14 -0700 (PDT), nt wrote:
>
> > Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
> > and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
>
> Unless you can produce some evidence that carrying out several hundred
> pounds of work when only an MOT was asked for is widespread then
> alleging it is so will merely diminish your case.
I'm not in a position where I need to provide the evidence. Having dealt with garages for however many years despite having the ability to do all the work myself I do however know that, at least from my own experience, attempts to scam the customer have been more frequent than more honest dealings.
>
> > Its thus more practical to rely instead on the fact that the owner did not authorise the work,
> > and would not have done, and the fact that this pattern of behaviour is a well known scam.
>
> Unless you can produce some evidence that carrying out several hundred
> pounds of work when only an MOT was asked for is widespread then
> alleging it is so will merely diminish your case.
> The same is true
> for allegations of theft when there hasn't been any.
> >From Trading Standards :-
>
> "REPAIRS HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHOUT AUTHORISATION
> This can be a contentious matter, especially with verbal contracts, as
> it can be very difficult to prove that the garage carried out the work
> without your authority. It will generally come down to your word
> against the word of the garage. If the garage has carried out
> unauthorised work, you could ask the garage to put the vehicle back to
> its original condition. This course of action, however, can create
> problems, especially if it would leave your car in a worse condition
> or even render it unroadworthy. The garage may also refuse to undo the
> work or release the car without payment. If improvements have been
> made, the garage is entitled to exercise a lien over the car (this is
> a legal right to hold disputed goods until payment is made). In these
> circumstances, the only way you can recover possession of the car is
> to 'pay under protest' and to pursue your claim for reimbursement -
> it's important to seek advice about paying under protest from the
> Citizens Advice consumer service .
>
> The garage may be a member of a trade association with a conciliation,
> mediation, or arbitration service, which can help sort out your
> complaint. You may have to pay for using an arbitration service, but
> conciliation is usually free. Discuss the service offered with the
> trade association before committing yourself. "
At the end of the day no purchase contract has been entered into (the OP says), and the garage has nothing signed to say it has. Add to that the fact that IIRC the car's value doesn't warrant such work, and its hard to see how a small claim case by the garage would be likely to succeed.
> In most of these cases the problem is not fraud but usually down to
> something as simple as a mechanic thinking the work had been
> authorised when it hadn't. A non-confrontational chat with the
> service manager is often more productive than going in with all guns
> blazing (especially if half the bullets are blanks).
NT
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 4:16:07 AM5/27/15
to
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 4:16:38 AM5/27/15
to
The mechanic may well not share it, however, its up to the garage to
prove the op authourised the works,not the op prove they didnt.
The op should be able to show any text messages phone calls or emails
recieved from the garage requesting authorisation to perform the works
puffernutter
May 27, 2015, 4:32:40 AM5/27/15
to
Cheers
Peter
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 4:36:42 AM5/27/15
to
In message <mk2j1j$9j$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:55:38 on Tue, 26 May 2015,
a rule saying "no repairs mid-test".
Clearly it's possible for a garage to do test-fail-repair-test-pass,
with a predetermined floor limit for the cost of the repair; therefore
such a rule wouldn't be very effective, but it wouldn't be the first
time that competition dogma threw up relatively ineffective rules.
--
Roland Perry
Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>>>
>>> The logic of your argument escapes me
>>
>> There are testers who don't do repairs.
>
>Thank you for that. Did you miss the bit where I wrote "eqaully [sic]
>no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
>people (me among them) may prefer to use"? I know there's no law
>against telling people what they know already but it rarely advances the
>argument.
I was commenting on what might be the public policy objective of having
>>>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>>>
>>> The logic of your argument escapes me
>>
>> There are testers who don't do repairs.
>
>Thank you for that. Did you miss the bit where I wrote "eqaully [sic]
>no law against MoT testers who do no repairs at all which some
>people (me among them) may prefer to use"? I know there's no law
>against telling people what they know already but it rarely advances the
>argument.
a rule saying "no repairs mid-test".
Clearly it's possible for a garage to do test-fail-repair-test-pass,
with a predetermined floor limit for the cost of the repair; therefore
such a rule wouldn't be very effective, but it wouldn't be the first
time that competition dogma threw up relatively ineffective rules.
--
Roland Perry
Robin
May 27, 2015, 4:46:38 AM5/27/15
to
Alex Heney wrote:
> They are "disadvantaged" exactly as much, whether the repairs are done
> during the test, or done after the initial test, followed by a retest
> of the failing parts.
Yes indeed.
> They are "disadvantaged" exactly as much, whether the repairs are done
> during the test, or done after the initial test, followed by a retest
> of the failing parts.
And I have a *possible* explanation for the requirement that they must
not do the repairs after the test (which I freely admit I was wrong to
question - it's in the separate manual about admin). The computer
system yields much more data about which cars have what faults at the
time of their MoT tests. But the data would miss some faults in some
cars if testers fixed them during the test. So it's all the fault of
"big data" :)
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 5:35:25 AM5/27/15
to
In message <roi9ma5dqthe0bqjl...@news.markshouse.net>, at
20:36:47 on Tue, 26 May 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>going to cause it to fail before doing the formal test.
They could do that for some of the obvious faults, but I wouldn't expect
the garage to have access to the rolling-road and emissions parts of the
test, other than during an actual test.
(If my car fails its next MOT it'll be one of the emissions tests which
has been creeping up gradually over the years, and was right on the line
last year. I'm not sure if it can be easily repaired).
--
Roland Perry
20:36:47 on Tue, 26 May 2015, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>It seems improbable that
>>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>
>>I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>>(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>>repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
>
>No, but the garage can do a pre-test check, and then fix anything which is
>>>a well thought of local garage (as this seems to be) would carry out
>>>£600+ of work on a car submitted just for an MOT without seeking
>>>agreement from the owner beforehand.
>>
>>I have an idea that it's not allowed under the MOT rules anyway. In
>>other words the testing garage can't "prep" a car midway through a test
>>(eg by replacing a bulb or wiper) - it has to fail the vehicle, do the
>>repairs, then re-test (even if they do the latter free of charge).
>
>going to cause it to fail before doing the formal test.
They could do that for some of the obvious faults, but I wouldn't expect
the garage to have access to the rolling-road and emissions parts of the
test, other than during an actual test.
(If my car fails its next MOT it'll be one of the emissions tests which
has been creeping up gradually over the years, and was right on the line
last year. I'm not sure if it can be easily repaired).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 5:35:49 AM5/27/15
to
In message <t8p9matcll4uriojq...@4ax.com>, at 22:29:08 on
Tue, 26 May 2015, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>Allowing the testers to carry out minor repairs as they go will make
>NO difference to that.
The MOT Testing Guide says:
[The tester] must ensure that the MOT tests are carried out without
avoidable distraction or interruption
& Once started, a test must be completed to the maximum extent safely
possible
& Where the vehicle fails the test and it is expected that the
defect(s) can be rectified within one hour [the tester] can elect to
use the "Pass after rectification" RS facility. Provided the tester
has completed the initial examination before any repairs are carried
out and the vehicle has been retained and repaired at the Test
Centre. If the defects are rectified within one hour of completion
of the test the NT must ... issue a VT30 in addition to a VT20. If
the defects cannot be rectified, for any reason, within one hour then
the vehicle must be failed and a VT30 issued.
Note: Only one partial re-examination is permissible per full test.
If, during the re-examination of a vehicle in any circumstances, it
becomes clear that the vehicle does not meet the necessary standard,
whether because the original defect has been inadequately repaired or
because another defect is present, the vehicle must be failed and a
further VT30 issued.
Which put together would tend to rule out a process of fixing things as
you went along.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 26 May 2015, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>On Tue, 26 May 2015 20:21:56 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <mk2e90$bk5$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:15 on Tue, 26 May
>>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>>>
>>>The logic of your argument escapes me
>>
>>There are testers who don't do repairs.
>
>We all know that.
>
>But the fact that the law allows - even *requires* re-tests to be free
>if the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs means there
>is already such bias.
That's evidence of a desire by TPTB not to allow repairs mid-test.
>wrote:
>
>>In message <mk2e90$bk5$1...@dont-email.me>, at 19:34:15 on Tue, 26 May
>>2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> It would bias motorists towards using testers who also did repairs.
>>>
>>>The logic of your argument escapes me
>>
>>There are testers who don't do repairs.
>
>We all know that.
>
>But the fact that the law allows - even *requires* re-tests to be free
>if the vehicle is left at the testing station for repairs means there
>is already such bias.
>Allowing the testers to carry out minor repairs as they go will make
>NO difference to that.
[The tester] must ensure that the MOT tests are carried out without
avoidable distraction or interruption
& Once started, a test must be completed to the maximum extent safely
possible
& Where the vehicle fails the test and it is expected that the
defect(s) can be rectified within one hour [the tester] can elect to
use the "Pass after rectification" RS facility. Provided the tester
has completed the initial examination before any repairs are carried
out and the vehicle has been retained and repaired at the Test
Centre. If the defects are rectified within one hour of completion
of the test the NT must ... issue a VT30 in addition to a VT20. If
the defects cannot be rectified, for any reason, within one hour then
the vehicle must be failed and a VT30 issued.
Note: Only one partial re-examination is permissible per full test.
If, during the re-examination of a vehicle in any circumstances, it
becomes clear that the vehicle does not meet the necessary standard,
whether because the original defect has been inadequately repaired or
because another defect is present, the vehicle must be failed and a
further VT30 issued.
Which put together would tend to rule out a process of fixing things as
you went along.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 5:36:06 AM5/27/15
to
In message <BFIvrqO1...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, at 09:31:49 on Wed, 27
May 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
would appear to be to ensure that at least one test is done as a whole,
uninterrupted, presumably so the tester isn't distracted. And then
there's one opportunity to fix some minor issues, ahead of a partial
retest.
--
Roland Perry
May 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>I was commenting on what might be the public policy objective of having
>a rule saying "no repairs mid-test".
Having now dug out the manual (see my rely to Alex) the actual objective
>a rule saying "no repairs mid-test".
would appear to be to ensure that at least one test is done as a whole,
uninterrupted, presumably so the tester isn't distracted. And then
there's one opportunity to fix some minor issues, ahead of a partial
retest.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 5:45:25 AM5/27/15
to
In message <mk2pji$qvg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:47:38 on Tue, 26 May
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>But no one can tell me why the tester couldn't just wipe a wet rag
>across your plate before failing it rather than after :(
A colleague of the tester could probably do it. As to how such a
practice is enforced - I'd expect that failing to follow the procedure
would invalidate the test, and the certificate. So they aren't so much
as being prosecuted for malpractice as only doing a test which isn't an
MOT test.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Seems the letter of the law (well, manual) changed with computerisation
>to "pass after rectification at the station". The tester is supposed to
>finish the test but can then fix minor defects like a bulb - or dirty
>number plate - within an hour and issue a VTS20 and VTS30 all in one go.
I found that online earlier, and have posted some extracts.
>to "pass after rectification at the station". The tester is supposed to
>finish the test but can then fix minor defects like a bulb - or dirty
>number plate - within an hour and issue a VTS20 and VTS30 all in one go.
>But no one can tell me why the tester couldn't just wipe a wet rag
>across your plate before failing it rather than after :(
practice is enforced - I'd expect that failing to follow the procedure
would invalidate the test, and the certificate. So they aren't so much
as being prosecuted for malpractice as only doing a test which isn't an
MOT test.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 5:47:58 AM5/27/15
to
In message <mk4072$ccm$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:46:35 on Wed, 27 May
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>after the test (which I freely admit I was wrong to
>question - it's in the separate manual about admin).
>The computer system yields much more data about which cars have what
>faults at the time of their MoT tests. But the data would miss some
>faults in some cars if testers fixed them during the test. So it's all
>the fault of "big data" :)
Issuing the V30 also makes it 'compulsory' to inform the owner what was
wrong, which might make them pay a bit more attention to that aspect of
the car's maintenance in future.
--
Roland Perry
2015, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I have a *possible* explanation for the requirement that they must
>not do the repairs
until?
>not do the repairs
>after the test (which I freely admit I was wrong to
>question - it's in the separate manual about admin).
>The computer system yields much more data about which cars have what
>faults at the time of their MoT tests. But the data would miss some
>faults in some cars if testers fixed them during the test. So it's all
>the fault of "big data" :)
wrong, which might make them pay a bit more attention to that aspect of
the car's maintenance in future.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 6:24:01 AM5/27/15
to
lien if no contract exist.
The garage could of course Sue yuo for the return of the piping, you of
course would counterclaim for the return of your piping plus the cost
of removal and reinstatement, as your piping will have been slung in
the bin, its up to the garage to replace it
The garage is on a loser straight away, the cost of the piping is
insignificant to the cost of the labour 5 metre roll of brake pipe
costs around £5.00 unions about £1.0 each even if they bought pre
configured pipes its going to be less than £80.00 for a complete set,
and realistically its unlikely the vehicle would need complete
replacement
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 6:24:57 AM5/27/15
to
contract was entered into , either presenting signed documentation
phone logs e mails texts, i can't see a business accepting verbal
instructions to perform unspecified works at unspecified costs, they
are a business they will be far more aware than jo public that such a
large bill is going to be challenged
I wouldnt be suprised if a communication cock ups happened, they rang
the wrong number, someone authorised the work on thier own car, Citreon
did something similar recently with me your vans ready sir i get taxi
to the dealership , walk in , wheres the van george , it aint ready
yet told yuo i ring yo , you did you prat , no i didnt , look your
number on me phone yo dopey sod sorry robo (5 minutes of piss
taking),looks like i f...ked up after a quick check, be ready in an
hour just reprogramming the ecu and its a PITA .
This all ended well but it could have so easily been different .
Roland Perry
May 27, 2015, 6:35:54 AM5/27/15
to
In message <xn0jmipp4...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
10:36:49 on Wed, 27 May 2015, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
ability to reinstate it, simply by the act of dismantling it to remove
it from the car.
--
Roland Perry
10:36:49 on Wed, 27 May 2015, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:
>The garage could of course Sue yuo for the return of the piping, you of
>course would counterclaim for the return of your piping plus the cost
>of removal and reinstatement, as your piping will have been slung in
>the bin, its up to the garage to replace it
Piping that needs replacing is probably going to be damaged beyond any
>course would counterclaim for the return of your piping plus the cost
>of removal and reinstatement, as your piping will have been slung in
>the bin, its up to the garage to replace it
ability to reinstate it, simply by the act of dismantling it to remove
it from the car.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Parry
May 27, 2015, 6:39:01 AM5/27/15
to
On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:36:49 +0100, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't place a
>lien if no contract exist.
The problem of course in such conflicts is that one side believes a
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't place a
>lien if no contract exist.
contract exists because they were asked to carry out the work, the
other side denies any such arrangement existed.
If something sensible can't be agreed then ultimately it will come
down to who is the most believable in court.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Peter Parry
May 27, 2015, 6:48:34 AM5/27/15
to
On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:22:34 +0100, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>You can't prove a negative ...., its in the garages power to prove a
>contract was entered into , either presenting signed documentation
>phone logs e mails texts, i can't see a business accepting verbal
>instructions to perform unspecified works at unspecified costs, they
>are a business they will be far more aware than jo public that such a
>large bill is going to be challenged
But specified work at a quoted price arranged over the phone is very
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>You can't prove a negative ...., its in the garages power to prove a
>contract was entered into , either presenting signed documentation
>phone logs e mails texts, i can't see a business accepting verbal
>instructions to perform unspecified works at unspecified costs, they
>are a business they will be far more aware than jo public that such a
>large bill is going to be challenged
common especially with work arising out of an MOT test where most
customers would prefer a call to say why the vehicle failed and what
their options are before turning up at the garage.
I still think there is something missing here. No garage these days
would expect to get away with £600 worth of completely unauthorised
repairs. The chances are much higher of there being a cock up
somewhere rather than malign intent.
Pelican
May 27, 2015, 7:14:07 AM5/27/15
to
"Peter Parry" <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:hh7bmat090o4h3n15...@4ax.com...
the work to be done. It seems from the information provided that the garage
will not be able to show that.
Pelican
May 27, 2015, 7:14:35 AM5/27/15
to
news:874mmyw...@news2.kororaa.com...
That is simply wrong. A lien exists as a security interest protecting the
person who has done work under a contract. Where there is a real dispute
about whether there was a contract to do that work, as here, the person
claiming the lien has a very difficult task. In this instance, there is no
contract to do the work, and ex hypothesi no lien. You can't pull yourself
up by your bootstraps.
> To say that because there is a dispute the lien can't exist completely
> negates the point of the lien.
That's not correct.
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> August West wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have not
>>> >> > entered into a contract, the customer could insist the mechanic
>>> >> > reinstates the old pipework
>>> >>
>>> >> But he can't take away the new pipework in the meantime. QED
>>> >
>>> > If the works are unauthorised you can
>>>
>>> And your authority for that is?
>>
>> The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't place
>> a lien if no contract exist.
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> August West wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have not
>>> >> > entered into a contract, the customer could insist the mechanic
>>> >> > reinstates the old pipework
>>> >>
>>> >> But he can't take away the new pipework in the meantime. QED
>>> >
>>> > If the works are unauthorised you can
>>>
>>> And your authority for that is?
>>
>> The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't place
>> a lien if no contract exist.
>
> And your authority for that is?
>
> There is a dispute; the mere fact of a dispute is why the lien exists.
>
That is simply wrong. A lien exists as a security interest protecting the
person who has done work under a contract. Where there is a real dispute
about whether there was a contract to do that work, as here, the person
claiming the lien has a very difficult task. In this instance, there is no
contract to do the work, and ex hypothesi no lien. You can't pull yourself
up by your bootstraps.
> To say that because there is a dispute the lien can't exist completely
> negates the point of the lien.
That's not correct.
Pelican
May 27, 2015, 7:23:06 AM5/27/15
to
news:6m7bma90rmep55uut...@4ax.com...
That might well be so, but the garage will wear it if it is the case that
the car owner did not actually authorise the repairs.
the car owner did not actually authorise the repairs.
Roger Hayter
May 27, 2015, 7:57:08 AM5/27/15
to
we should do what was necessary." Whether they will be believed is
another matter.
--
Roger Hayter
Robin
May 27, 2015, 8:27:05 AM5/27/15
to
Pelican wrote:
>>> The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't
>>> place a lien if no contract exist.
>>
>> The problem of course in such conflicts is that one side believes a
>> contract exists because they were asked to carry out the work, the
>> other side denies any such arrangement existed.
>>
>> If something sensible can't be agreed then ultimately it will come
>> down to who is the most believable in court.
>
> It comes down to whether the garage can show that the car owner asked
> for the work to be done. It seems from the information provided that
> the garage will not be able to show that.
On a point of detail, I think the issue is not whether the owner asked
>>> The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't
>>> place a lien if no contract exist.
>>
>> The problem of course in such conflicts is that one side believes a
>> contract exists because they were asked to carry out the work, the
>> other side denies any such arrangement existed.
>>
>> If something sensible can't be agreed then ultimately it will come
>> down to who is the most believable in court.
>
> It comes down to whether the garage can show that the car owner asked
> for the work to be done. It seems from the information provided that
> the garage will not be able to show that.
for "the work" to be done but whether she asked for "any work" (over and
above the MoT) to be done. I say that because AIUI in England a common
law lien (as distinct from a contractual lien) can arise independent of
contract. If the garage accepted the car for MoT and repair if
necesaary, and the garage carried out repairs which improved the car, it
has a lien until the customer has paid. It is of course open to the
owner to argue that the garage was never entitled to carry out repairs.
It is then as you say ultimately a matter of evidence and a judgment as
to who is to be believed. But I can't see any way for the owner simply
to assert there is no lien.
It's the sort of thing which leads to the bureaucracy of garages wanting
customers to read and sign up to long T&Cs before any job. But as
others have said that still does not prevent cock-ups and breakdowns in
communications
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 8:37:37 AM5/27/15
to
practices and come to a sensible arrangement, if it is a well
thought of local independant garage it woyuldnt want its reputation to
be bought down
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 8:38:21 AM5/27/15
to
Peter Parry wrote:
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:22:34 +0100, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You can't prove a negative ...., its in the garages power to prove
> > a contract was entered into , either presenting signed documentation
> > phone logs e mails texts, i can't see a business accepting verbal
> > instructions to perform unspecified works at unspecified costs,
> > they are a business they will be far more aware than jo public that
> > such a large bill is going to be challenged
>
> But specified work at a quoted price arranged over the phone is very
> common especially with work arising out of an MOT test where most
> customers would prefer a call to say why the vehicle failed and what
> their options are before turning up at the garage.
Which should be easy to prove/ disprove the ops daughter would probably
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 10:22:34 +0100, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You can't prove a negative ...., its in the garages power to prove
> > a contract was entered into , either presenting signed documentation
> > phone logs e mails texts, i can't see a business accepting verbal
> > instructions to perform unspecified works at unspecified costs,
> > they are a business they will be far more aware than jo public that
> > such a large bill is going to be challenged
>
> But specified work at a quoted price arranged over the phone is very
> common especially with work arising out of an MOT test where most
> customers would prefer a call to say why the vehicle failed and what
> their options are before turning up at the garage.
have been called on her mobile so there will be a log of the call on
her phone
The garage should be able to prove a call was made as the number should
be logged on thier phone or appear on the bill
>
> I still think there is something missing here. No garage these days
> would expect to get away with �600 worth of completely unauthorised
> repairs. The chances are much higher of there being a cock up
> somewhere rather than malign intent.
Agreed, it sounds as though the garage may have confused customers or
> I still think there is something missing here. No garage these days
> would expect to get away with �600 worth of completely unauthorised
> repairs. The chances are much higher of there being a cock up
> somewhere rather than malign intent.
contacted another customer in error, if this is the case then the
garage are not in a position to hold the car to ransom
If its a decent car they may be able to come to a compromise , but if
the cars only worth a few hundred pounds its going to be unlikely
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 8:39:10 AM5/27/15
to
August West wrote:
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > August West wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have
> not >> >> > entered into a contract, the customer could insist the
> mechanic >> >> > reinstates the old pipework
> >> >>
> >> >> But he can't take away the new pipework in the meantime. QED
> >> >
> >> > If the works are unauthorised you can
> >>
> >> And your authority for that is?
> >
> > The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't
> > place a lien if no contract exist.
>
>
> The entity calling itself steve robinson wrote:
> >
> > August West wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > If the works are unauthorised the customer and mechanic have
> not >> >> > entered into a contract, the customer could insist the
> mechanic >> >> > reinstates the old pipework
> >> >>
> >> >> But he can't take away the new pipework in the meantime. QED
> >> >
> >> > If the works are unauthorised you can
> >>
> >> And your authority for that is?
> >
> > The works were unauthorised no contract entered into, you can't
> > place a lien if no contract exist.
>
> And your authority for that is?
>
>
> There is a dispute; the mere fact of a dispute is why the lien exists.
> To say that because there is a dispute the lien can't exist completely
> negates the point of the lien.
A lien exists on debts for agreed works,
> negates the point of the lien.
This as you say is a dispute, not over costs of work but over the
authority to perform the works.
Two completly seperate issues
Where no authority is given to perform the works no complaint of theft
if the vehicle is taken will stand , you can't place a lien on a
vehicle in this circumstance.
Following your views would mean the next time someone washes my windows
at the traffic lights if i refused to pay they could place a lien on my
vehicle and call the police if i drove away
steve robinson
May 27, 2015, 8:40:28 AM5/27/15
to
Nick
May 27, 2015, 8:41:29 AM5/27/15
to
On 27/05/2015 11:36, August West wrote:
>
> There is a dispute; the mere fact of a dispute is why the lien exists.
> To say that because there is a dispute the lien can't exist completely
> negates the point of the lien.
>
That is hyperbole. Difficult to recover debts often (normally?) exist
>
> There is a dispute; the mere fact of a dispute is why the lien exists.
> To say that because there is a dispute the lien can't exist completely
> negates the point of the lien.
>
without dispute, so liens have value even if they do not apply in
disputed cases. Perhaps your profession exposes you to the disputed ones
and hence has skewed your thinking.
It clearly is a very interesting question, when a disputed contract
invalidates a lien.
I would naively expect customer protections of a B2C relationship to
apply and hence would expect the burden of proof to be on the garage to
show the contract is valid, but I really don't have a clue of how it
goes in real life.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages