Re: Escalating garage costs...what can I do?

ah ta for that... I was looking for a more suitable 2nd forum to post it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed apt.

You wouldnt consider the term workmanship, to encompass finding out why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?

Indeed, except of course my experience suggests the switch would in fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around.

Well exactly... you are agreeing with what I just wrote! ie. they had me over a barrel. Keep up!

Well from chatting to various people since this has happened....the consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I guess.

Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down.. spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without any indication of what I was going to pay!

Technically true, but I would imagine it still has some resale value without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.

If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then well... its not scrap is it? :-)

Yep to what? both questions? including the "selling" bit? I suspect there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im here asking the question in a legal forum.

well the fact it had broken down in the first place was probably a bit of a clue :-)

no... I was experiencing some "judder" through the brakes which I was told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this

ok... i take issue with the order of that sentence... surely in retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix them whether at that garage or elsewhere.

given that I dont spend every day of my working life, dealing with issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any "repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much money as they could. :-)

Would you be happy paying the =A3660 bill based on the above then? Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I mention that figure.

very possibly... its all a bit complicated really. But thanks for reading and commenting.

Excessive current through the starter motor I think is what they mean to say. Except there is absolutely no way the starter motor is wired directly through the switch - the thing would evaporate in a tenth of a second even with a normal starting current. Sounds like this guy has been spun a load of b*ll*cks by the garage.

In news:Xns9931DEAA9329Cadrianachapmanfreeis@204.153.245.131, Adrian wittered on forthwith;

Ah, it's been getting worse for a month, you kept driving and then decided to claim off the garage even though its not the fault of the garage that you kept using it even though there was an obvious problem.

IF you'd have gone to the garage the first or second time it played up they'd have probably looked at it for free and might well have cured the fault. Instead you waited for something to fail completely then expect a free lunch.

Now you're complaining that it's costing a lot to fix a car that obviously isn't serviced regularly enough.

ah ta for that... I was looking for a more suitable 2nd forum to post it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed apt.

You wouldnt consider the term workmanship, to encompass finding out why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?

Indeed, except of course my experience suggests the switch would in fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around.

Well exactly... you are agreeing with what I just wrote! ie. they had me over a barrel. Keep up!

Well from chatting to various people since this has happened....the consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I guess.

Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down.. spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without any indication of what I was going to pay!

Technically true, but I would imagine it still has some resale value without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.

If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then well... its not scrap is it? :-)

Yep to what? both questions? including the "selling" bit? I suspect there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im here asking the question in a legal forum.

well the fact it had broken down in the first place was probably a bit of a clue :-)

no... I was experiencing some "judder" through the brakes which I was told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this

ok... i take issue with the order of that sentence... surely in retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix them whether at that garage or elsewhere.

given that I dont spend every day of my working life, dealing with issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any "repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much money as they could. :-)

Would you be happy paying the £660 bill based on the above then? Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I mention that figure.

very possibly... its all a bit complicated really. But thanks for reading and commenting.

ah ta for that... I was looking for a more suitable 2nd forum to post it to, concerning motoring stuff, but couldnt find one that seemed apt.

You wouldnt consider the term workmanship, to encompass finding out why the original component failed then, but merely the physical act of installing a new component? If thats the case, why was the cause investigated the 2nd time, but not the first?

Indeed, except of course my experience suggests the switch would in fact last much longer than this, thus undermining the credibility of what he told me. Which might imply that the excess current problem was there the first time around.

Well exactly... you are agreeing with what I just wrote! ie. they had me over a barrel. Keep up!

Well from chatting to various people since this has happened....the consensus is that you take your car to be MOTed... you pay the MOT price.... you then get a quote for any work that needs doing. You arent obliged to get the work done at that garage... in fact you can take it wherever you so choose. A form of "putting out to tender" I guess.

Maybe I didnt make it clear, but it seemed that labour charges had been incurred in stripping down etc, without my authorisation. The car had failed and then they'd gone ahead and started stripping it down.. spending (chargeable time) finding out whats wrong with it, without any indication of what I was going to pay!

Technically true, but I would imagine it still has some resale value without an MOT. Im sure there are loads of people out there who could do the requisite work themselves for a fraction of what Im being quoted and then sell the vehicle on for a profit.

If its possible for me to sell if for more than scrap value then well... its not scrap is it? :-)

Yep to what? both questions? including the "selling" bit? I suspect there's quite a bit of legal stuff to happen before they could simply sell something which doesnt belong to them. Which is sort of why Im here asking the question in a legal forum.

well the fact it had broken down in the first place was probably a bit of a clue :-)

no... I was experiencing some "judder" through the brakes which I was told might be simply due to some corrosion on the discs rubbing against the pads. If anything the brakes worked *too* well on the thing, so I had no reason to believe it would fail the MOT on this

ok... i take issue with the order of that sentence... surely in retrospect.. it should be MOT first, to ascertain the full extent and potential cost of problems to fix.....informing of the owner of the problems and likely cost.... then a decision/course of action to fix them whether at that garage or elsewhere.

given that I dont spend every day of my working life, dealing with issues like this, Im suggesting that perhaps they were in a better position to suggest MOTing first... then proceeding with any "repairs"... unless of course they were trying to screw me for as much money as they could. :-)

Would you be happy paying the £660 bill based on the above then? Everyone Ive told this to so far, has been stunned into silence when I mention that figure.

very possibly... its all a bit complicated really. But thanks for reading and commenting.

Why whinge here about it? Assuming you are in the UK, talk to your local Trading standards office, at least you will get a definitive answer there, which will be unbiased.

Not normally, no. Few people would want to pay for it to be done.

Because normally when something dies it's faulty. If it starts dying repeatedly then it's probably something else causing it.

Possibly. Did you pay somebody to check that?

Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here (clever snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

No.

Did you ask them to replace the lock or to investigate why it died?

From the rest of your post, your car is in it's later-middle-age - probably somewhere around early-mid 90s, right? So an ignition lock dying is FAR from unusual, just through old age and wear'n'tear.

No point in spending hours diagnosing that nothing else seemed wrong.

Umm. no.

Ummm, no.

First time round, it probably died of old age. Second time round, the motor killed it. If it WAS being burnt out originally, the second one probably wouldn't have lasted six months or however long.

You misunderstand me. After the fail, you knew the brakes were not up to scratch - together with whatever other fail points. Even if it had been just tested, it doesn't sound as if it was roadworthy.

Sounds like the "MOT is all the maintenance it needs" brigade.

Would you rather the conversation had been "It's failed" "What'll it cost?" "Dunno - haven't had a look yet."

Of course not. You'd have said "Well, have a look, and ring me back with a price"

Fifty quid scrap value.

You won't.

Yes.

Clue: It's probably not "Yep" to "What would happen then?" - and you only asked one other question.

Of course it isn't. A tempramental ignition lock is not an MOT fail.

Did you tell them that you may consider scrapping it depending on the size of the bill? If not, then I'd suggest that they took the normal path - fix immediate fault, MOT, see what else is needed.

Yes.

I'm not.

£320 ignition lock & starter motor. £50 MOT - that's £370 so far.

You said the £660 is the estimated total with the brakes (and whatever else) done and a ticket. So that's only another £290. What else is on the fail list? Three hours labour is going to be nearly half that difference, leaving a stack of bits. What car IS it, anyway? If the master cylinder is the cause of the brake problems, or if maintenance has been skimped leading to unchanged brake fluid causing seizing calipers, then I can see that the parts bill will EASILY come to that.

Shit, if you & your mates think £700 sufficient to "stun into silence", I (and many others) could show you bills that'd make your hair curl...

Andy ( snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Yes, the main feed for the motor's direct from the battery, but the solenoid isn't usually relayed - if that's pulling an excess, then it could easily burn the switch out.

I disagree. The probability that two identical failures were caused by the same (original) fault is *far* higher than the probability that two completely different faults occured within 6 months that by coincidence resulted in an identical component failure.

Sorry, but I'll stick with Occums razor on this one.

Incidentally, the starter motor's current does *not* pass through the ignition switch. The ignition switch may operate a relay (solenoid) which switches the current to the starter motor. So if the garage are wanting to replace the starter motor, I'd say they are either incompetant or dodgy.

The solenoid *is* a relay (and may or may not do other things as well).

Cynic (cynic snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

The solenoid is usually a (relatively) integral part of the starter motor... Older stuff may well have had a remote solenoid, but I've not seen one on anything made in the last few decades.

Dunno. The only engines I've messed about with in recent years have been boat engines. And the one's I've worked on certainly do have a separate solenoid.

This is a Pre engaged starter, the solenoid switches the battery power and also forces the starter gear into the flywheel. A dodgy solenoid can easily draw +10amps and it's fairly common to see smoke coming from the ignition switch, you are thinking of old inertia starters. A pre engaged starter solenoid would take a least 30mins to replace once the starter was removed, and the actual starter is probably as shagged as the solenoid. So if the "incompetant or dodgy" garage charged the customer to remove /repair and refit the semi shagged starter, would they be doing him a favour by not fitting a guaranteed new starter?

Well if the cars been in the water then the starter motors going to be the least of its issues.

On Thu, 17 May 2007 23:26:00 +0100, "Fred" >

No I am not. The current through the ignition switch is from the solenoid and not the starter motor. The solenoid acts as a relay to switch the actual starting current as I stated. The solenoid may well operate the engagement mechanism as well.

No fault in the starter motor would cause excessive current through the ignition switch, and I stand by what I said regarding the probability of two different faults being a heck of a lot less than there being one fault.

However, to all intents and purposes, the solenoid is part of the starter motor.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. I'd be surprised if it were not possible to replace the solenoid (and engagement mechanism if applicable) without needing to replace the entire starter motor.

But that's beside my main point, which was that it is far more likely that the reason for the original ignition switch failure was the same as the reason for the second failure than the probability that they were caused by two entirely separate faults.

A poster suggested that the first fault must have been different because excessive current would cause a failure in a very short period of time. I disagree completely, because the length of time that an ignition switch will last in overload depends upon how serious the overload is, and that is unknown. If the solenoid were shorted out, I can believe that the ignition switch would fail almost immediately - but the solenoid was still working so it was obviously not as bad as a dead short.