On 08/10/2019 12:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:11:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/10/2019 11:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:17:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/10/2019 10:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Should I insist that they fix it?

This is one aspect of UK consumer law that is total and utter
******** (IMHO). The clowns have ****ed up once. Why on earth are you
*required*
to have any faith in them thereafter ?

To be fair, I suspect they hadnt done a freelander before and unless
you KNOW that the front coupling is fragile and you have to tie up the
prop shaft before removing the centre bearings and VC then its an easy
mistake to make. The mechanic I spoke to was competent, he admitted he
never disconnected the front prop shaft which the service manual
issues dire warnings about if you dont. He just made a mistake,
thats all. Of course he insists 'it was like that before I started'
It wasn't. Immediately I drove it away I noticed the difference and
drove straight back into the garage.

At the risk of sounding snippy, would a competent mechanic have left
you in the position you now find yourself ?

IS this an aspect of consumer law though? That is what I need to know.
The easier way forward for me would, if it did not prejudice my
position, be, to get an after market prop-shaft for £100 and get
another garage to fit it and sue these guys for the cost.

Maybe a legal NG is a better place ?

crossposted to uk.legal

All I know is from years of reading Q&As, is that when you turn up in a
court, the very first thing the mags/judge will do is to ask if you
have exhausted *all other avenues* for redress. And if you haven't they
can strike cases out, and leave you to foot the bill. It's the classic
#1 mistake a lot of morons make. Rushing to issue a summons before
anything else, which no court likes.

OK good advice.


So you need to show you have done everything you can before you turn up
in court. And that *usually* requires you allow the other party a
chance to make good the problem.

Which I have so far

Which is all very well in a fairytale where no one is crooked and
setting out to rip punters off. However in the real world, it fails to
address the situation where Bodgit, Son and Runne, are a midnight flit
away from their last customer at all times ....

Oh no. This is a well established and generally decent firm that's been
around a long time.

They made a mistake, it's not shoddy work per se. I just want them to
admit it and fix the problem.

There is a further problem, in that *if* they offer to fix it, they are
de factor admitting liability. Which may not be a good thing further down
the line. Which is arguably an artefact of our adversarial concept of
civil law. Or not. I don't know.


I am perfectly happy to sign an agreement to not pursue the matter
firther if they do fix it.

There's also the added factor of any consequential loss. Once liability
is admitted, it could lead to a lot more expense than the mere fixing of
the problem.

What is the actual mechanical remedy ? I'm guessing it's a new very
expensive bit + a shed load of labour = in excess of £500 ?

Actually no. Its about £100 + 30 mins labour or £36 and about an hours
labour

Or if taken to a main dealer what you said. £100 labour and a £300 part


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.