RT Mechanics – Volvo Specialist’s Repair Gone Wrong!

[AndysR]

Originally Posted by st5ve

Sale and Supply of Goods and Services
Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 traders must sell goods that are as described and of satisfactory quality, and provide services that are to a proper standard of workmanship.

Supply of Goods and Services Act
The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires traders to provide services to a proper standard of workmanship. Furthermore, if a definite completion date or a price has not been fixed then the work must be completed within a reasonable time and for a reasonable charge.
Also, any material used or goods supplied in providing the service must be of satisfactory quality.
The law treats failure to meet these obligations as breach of contract and consumers would be entitled to seek redress, if necessary through the civil courts.
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 Fact Sheet
Subject:
Supply of Services and Supply of Faulty Goods or Materials Provided with Services.
Relevant or Related Legislation:
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
Key Facts:
• The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 requires a supplier of a service acting in the course of business in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to carry out that service with reasonable care and skill and, unless agreed to the contrary, within a reasonable time and make no more than a reasonable charge.
• These terms apply unless they have been excluded and there are strict limits on the circumstances in which an exclusion or variation will be effective.
• Common law in Scotland has similar effect to the 1982 Act. Suppliers of services or their customers should obtain legal advice about the common law in Scotland if necessary.
• If a supplier of a service breaches the conditions of a contract (for example by failing to carry out the work ordered) the consumer has a choice either to affirm the contract (treat it as still in existence) and claim compensation from the trader for his failure to carry out what was agreed or rescind (cancel) the contract.
• If the supplier does not carry out the work with reasonable care and skill the law treats the matter as a breach of contract and the consumer can seek redress. Often reasonable compensation in these circumstances will be repair or replacement.
• If no agreement has been made with the supplier about completion of the work, or about the charge to be made, then if it is not completed within a reasonable time or the price is unreasonable, this is also treated as breach of contract and the consumer may be entitled to compensation.
• Any goods supplied in the course of the service must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for their purpose. If they are not the consumer is entitled to a repair, replacement or compensation.
• A supplier of a service who has broken a contract may also be liable for any consequential loss which is suffered by the consumer. Ultimately it would be for the courts to decide whether or not a breach of contract has occurred and the redress, in the form of damages (compensation), to which a consumer might be entitled.
• A claim can be pursued though the courts for up to six years providing it can be shown that the problem was due to the work not being carried out properly or the goods or materials used not being of satisfactory quality.

Q1. What redress am I entitled to if a problem arises with the work that has been carried out?
Generally a repair or replacement of any faulty goods or materials would be appropriate.
Q2. What do I do if the supplier won’t take any action about my complaint?
If necessary you can pursue a claim through the small claims court (up to £5000) at modest cost and without the need for a solicitor.
Q3. If I have to pursue a claim in court what can I claim?
The cost of putting right any work that has not been carried out properly and replacing any defective goods and materials. You might also be able to claim any consequential costs incurred as a direct result of the poor work or defective goods.

This forum by definition is a community, we all share a common interest and in the vast majority of posts we try to help each other. Posting up a picture of a spoon and stating some of the members are just stirring or mixing things up shows a lack of integrity, belittles a genuine complaint and gives an example of your maturity.

Asking for a breakdown of all work carried out is not stirring; it is a reasonable request which will be beneficial to other members on this forum to make an informed decision about this situation. I totally understand your concern and why you posted the picture, however it is yet to be ascertained wither posting all the invoice details will have a negative impact on Russ.

I had a completely non biased non community member view this thread and it was their opinion, not mine, that the thread has a completely one sided arguement, a fact which can't be disputed, and has been spurred on by a few community members who seem to be starting a crusade, notable when you see this topic dragged across to other forums by these few, to publicly tarnish an excellent track record of which there have been many many examples of on here and other forums. Naturally your response would be that Russ has not been refused the right to reply, and you would be right to say that, but then why should he? For a start it would be unprofessional of him especially considering it will no doubt go legal. This issue is something between Greg and Russ alone and the only time this subject should become public, if at all, is when all facts have been established from BOTH sides and a conclusion has been drawn legally.
Unfortunately this thread is turning into a heavily weighted public trial against RT's, the conclusion of which appears to have already been made.

You misunderstand me if you feel I am belittling Greg's claims. In fact if you check back to the original posts I have stated I didn't want to get involved with the dispute itself as that was between Russ and Greg alone. I stated that I only hoped it could be sorted quickly and efficently for both parties, and if possible amicably, and indeed that it should be settled off the forum in which ever way was required.

You asking for a breakdown of all work previously carried out has no bearing on this dispute. The original post is Greg stating he has a dispute over his LAST visit to RT's. He at no point previously has made any claims about being disappointed with the service he has received. I am sure that Greg was aware of what was required and hence was happy to spend the money, indeed on one forum his signature reads "Serviced By RT Mechanic's Probably the best Garage in the world of Volvo's!" not exactly the words of an unhappy customer. The previous invoice details are of no concern to yourself, myself or indeed anyone else in the community. Should Greg proceed with a legal case and if these invoices are required then I am sure it will be something his solicitor will ask him for.

If you personally have taken offence over the picture this was not my intention. I would not, and have no intention of, attacking you or any other member here personally. So I ask that perhaps you would do me the courtesy of refraining from questioning my integrety and maturity in the future as this is neither relevant to this post or indeed necessary and hardly in keeping with your community spirit!

I have no doubt what I have written here will go against the grain of the thread and I am sure it will cause further posts against myself which tbh only really reinforces what I have stated above. I am already annoyed with myself at getting involved further than I had originally wished to therefore you will not be seeing any further reply's from myself regarding this topic on this forum.

[st5ve]

Andy I have PM'd you

[thebigv]

I apologise for not reading the entire thread and again sorry if i am repeating anyone. Here's my two peneth.

1) Some comments like the ones on this thread, and even the title is why this forum had to be extra careful in the first place.

2) You always hear of the bad reports about traders and never the good. Its amazing how many people have been wronged but never say until someone else has the guts to do so.

3) Only the courts can decide about who is right and who is wrong in any case, so people quoting legislation when they truly dont have an understanding of both sides stories are on a hiding to nothing and giving people false hopes. Examples can be, the trader ultimately has wronged you, but they offer everything to put it right, the courts can look on this as you being awkward and award in the traders favour, or equal liability.

4) I am impartial to both parties, i have however purchased items from RT, but cannot and would not comment on any good or bad service i have received because issues such as these are between and them.

[Laney760]

I have no spoon or agenda but I have found a forum thread in which Russ speaks in his own words of the components of the health check (which includes brakes) and the reasons for it. Comparing this to the independent technician's report will further help forum members make their own reasoned opinions



http://www.volvoforums.org.uk/showth...t=76625&page=2

[andy_d]

having read the OP's orriginal post, his post which he lays things out a little less confused,
i cant help but feel the following
1/ there is a unhappy customer,
2/ there is a 2nd side we havent heard yet
3/ Possibly this wasnt the most advised way of highlighting the incident, perhaps it may have been better to have waited until a final resolution had been achieved, before posting the details?.
Once a resolution had been reached, then this could have been a "cautionary tale" "customers experiance" , perhaps based not only on the possible negative aspects but the hopefully possative final outcome.

yes i can see why the OP felt as if this was a option at the time of posting, i can see why the apparent pause in communications would lead to thoughts along the lines of posting.

4/ Right/wrong and all the "but you should/shouldnt have/did/didnt" comments are just that our own views, they dont relate to the posters thoughts/views/feelings, or indeed how this may (or may not) progess towards its resolution.

I dont know Either party, dont have a view as to "right/wrong" or "blame" if there is any of those, and whilst it can be usefull to have different views and information on person/persons performing services for our volvo's, i would prefer to have the issue With the eventual resolution included , Then be made public, i feel that presents a more complete story.

i do however wish that both the OP and the garage manage to reach a solution to the apparent issue amicably.

[hadi]

interesting post here, you would think they would rectify the cars problems as the more people that are aware of this ongoing saga, the less people will use this garage in the future, my car has been in there in the past although i wasnt the owner then, but still have all the receipts although i did find the prices expensive, but hey i never paid them, lol

[pillapow]

Just been reading through this thread for the last hour, Is there any update on the situation, I see the thread has strayed away from the issue.

[Jod T5]

Originally Posted by pillapow

I see the thread has strayed away from the issue.

Indeed...
Maybe one of the mods would care to tidy it up a little....

Jod

[cumbrianmale]

Originally Posted by Jod T5

Indeed...
Maybe one of the mods would care to tidy it up a little....

Jod

The off topic discussions have been split and are now here.

[stedman]

Is there any closure on this at all?