I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

TIA

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and they
have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has play in
it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this was
the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should I
insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?

Thats what I would do. They might well choose to do that once
they realise that you will be taking it to the small claims court.

And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

It should always be fixed at the sort of prices that you have listed.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 19:44:59 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


It should always be fixed at the sort of prices that you have listed.

You senile head needs fixing, you obnoxious senile pest from Oz!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

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.




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.




--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

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.



--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 09:35:40 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

TIA

You'll need an expert report saying it got damaged, and 3 written quotes for the job. It's ok to refuse to let the original person/company sort it if there's good reason, and it sounds to me at least like you could argue that realistically. They may argue otherwise of course, and will insist they did the job correctly and damaged nothing. With that point you seem to be in a position of just hoping the jp sides with you, which is a total gamble. Don't forget to claim £20 costs.


NT

On 08/10/2019 09:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the frontÂ* coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

TIA

If you're towards court action, an independent engineer's report on the
damage before changing anything is the answer IMO. That way they cannot
claim the repairing garage have damaged it; you have a known starting
position.


Pragmatically though, it may be easier to get it fixed then attempt to
recoup the cost. As the LR is a few years old, an aftermarket assembly
would be my choice, if it was newer, I'd do OEM. If they've ****ed up
one bearing, I'd be questionong their ability to have done the rest of it.

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.

On 08/10/2019 13:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:01:55 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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.

Not sure such disclaimers can be enforced in court, but IANAL. (You can't
sign away statutory rights AIUI)


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

Oh, FFS ! - Even 25 years ago, when I worked in trade I'd have done that
without mention, to keep a good customer.

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

Are both those estimates for the correct job ?

Yes.

I diunno if you are familar with the front propshaft of a freelander but
it has a sliding and slighly flexible coupoleing to the transfer box
(stock UJs aft) The coupling consits of a three way, rather than 4 way
'spider' with roller beraing tips in cups, that fits over the prop
shaft via sliding splines and is retained to the transfer box by a housing.

4 bolts and that bit all comes apart and the bearing can be replaced. Or
take the front shaft off completely and dismantle on the bench. an hours
work max.

IF YOU CAN SOUERCE NEW BEARINGS. Only one ebay seller has them
LR sells a propshaft for £295 complete and after market clones are £100.

These are obviously 'fit and forget' solutions.

..


--
€œThere are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isnt true; the
other is to refuse to believe what is true.€�

€”Soren Kierkegaard

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), 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 ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive"
and inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

On 08/10/2019 14:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), 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 ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive"
and inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?


--
€œIdeas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

One assumes it has been delivered and signed for...

How long have you given them to respond? Did you place a response
deadline in the letter? Did you state what you wanted them to do?

Send another letter, recorded delivery, reminding them of the
delivery date and contents of the first. If you can address it
directly, by name, to the MD, all the better. Less chance of it
ending up at the bottom of a service department clerks in tray.

Restate what action you expect them to take. State what action you
will take if the don't respond within a restated (realistic)
deadline. ie you get it repaired elsewhere and for them to foot that
bill and if they don't you'll file Small Claims Court claim for that
bill plus court costs and expenses (all those recorded letters, your
time/inconvience, etc)

The aim being to give them ample oporunity to correct the problem and
to be sure they know the consequencies if they don't.

You say they are "a well established and generally decent firm that's
been
around a long time." I'd expect such a company to jump once someone
high enough up the tree becomes aware.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it?

Yes. A court will expect you to have followed the pre-action
protocols’ and have tried to settle the claim before the last resort
of getting to court. Having another garage fix it without giving
the original garage an opportunity to do so and then going to court to
claim the cost would be unlikely to succeed.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...a-small-claim/

You should write to the garage setting out your claim objectively but
not trying to tell them what caused the fault, so simply "excessive
vibration from drive shaft immediately following work by you on
bearings" Ask them to investigate and fix it .

Full instructions on using MoneyClaim (the most appropriate way to go)
are at
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-eng.pdfonline
I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level?

No.

Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

The latter, and the remedy is confined to fixing any damage that they
caused, so you can't expect to get a new drive train installed when
the fault they caused was to one bearing. You may need to have the
car examined by an expert (another garage for example) to show the
fault was caused by their mistake. The cost of that examination and
report can be added to your claim.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 14:26:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?

Yes, the Citizens Advice page I referenced has a suitable template
letter to use. This has another
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...ms-court-claim

You will need to change them a bit as they are aimed at faulty goods
but the principle remains the same.

On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate !.

Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.

What I'd do is write recorded delivery to the ceo if its a group or the
manager if its independent and repeat your claim, and put a time limit on
that, then tell them that you will then take independent advice on
rectifying the vehicle and get it done keeping all documents. If the vehicle
is laid up while you wait, tell them you will expect to be recompensed for
hiring a vehicle during the time.
If they wont take the very strong hint and fix it, then go through with
your plan and present them with the bill and then if they won't pay claim.
A word of warning though, If they are a fly by night outfit they may have
other cases pending and may choose to wind up the business and claim hey
have no assets for the court to have.

I had this with a double glazing company and they eventually or rather one
of the directors gave me half the cost which was the best I could do as I
got the distinct impression he was as much hoodwinked by the other directors
as his customers were.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and they
have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has play in
it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this was
the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should I
insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

TIA

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 08/10/2019 14:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:22:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), 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 ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

Funny that ... I had that grumble back in the 1990s too. In fact I first
became aware of it when a friend of my fathers got ripped off by a
builder.

Dastardly EU, using time travel to enforce their dastardly plans, eh ?


Everything is the EU's fault in the minds of brexiteers.
Its why they don't like the EU.

They also don't like being told they are wrong and killfile you for
doing so.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 13:42:25 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:22:13 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), 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 ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

Funny that ... I had that grumble back in the 1990s too. In fact I first
became aware of it when a friend of my fathers got ripped off by a
builder.

Dastardly EU, using time travel to enforce their dastardly plans, eh ?

It has always (or at least since 1893 and subsequent case law) in the
UK been the case that in any breach of contract the entity responsible
should normally have an opportunity to resolve the issue. However,
that was not cast in stone and showing objective reason why you didn't
want to allow an opportunity to remedy could be presented and often
was when the case was about faulty workmanship

When the European Commission set about reviewing the Consumer Acquis
they set as one of the principles of the legislation "keeping the
contract alive" and that canceling it must be the last resort.

One aim of the consumer Acquis was stated as being to encourage inter
community consumer trade and to simplify consumer legislation. In
both respects it has, to be kind, been somewhat less than successful.

On 08/10/2019 14:31, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

One assumes it has been delivered and signed for...

One assumes. I have the slip


How long have you given them to respond? Did you place a response
deadline in the letter? Did you state what you wanted them to do?

Send another letter, recorded delivery, reminding them of the
delivery date and contents of the first. If you can address it
directly, by name, to the MD, all the better. Less chance of it
ending up at the bottom of a service department clerks in tray.

Restate what action you expect them to take. State what action you
will take if the don't respond within a restated (realistic)
deadline. ie you get it repaired elsewhere and for them to foot that
bill and if they don't you'll file Small Claims Court claim for that
bill plus court costs and expenses (all those recorded letters, your
time/inconvience, etc)

The aim being to give them ample oporunity to correct the problem and
to be sure they know the consequencies if they don't.

You say they are "a well established and generally decent firm that's
been
around a long time." I'd expect such a company to jump once someone
high enough up the tree becomes aware.


I think that is exactly what I am going to do.
I gave them no deadline, but was due to bring te car in today but didn't
because they hadn't responded .
My experience with the law is generally at the low levels if you have
all your ducks in a row at a small claims hearing half the time the
other party doesn't even show up and you get judgment by default.

Of course getting a claim stamped by the court doesnt get you money
And you may need to request that from bailiffs etc.
But the publicity is not great for the firm is it?

I wonder if they award costs. Probably do if you have made genuine
efforts to reach an agreement.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 08/10/2019 14:57, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it?

Yes. A court will expect you to have followed the pre-action
protocols and have tried to settle the claim before the last resort
of getting to court. Having another garage fix it without giving
the original garage an opportunity to do so and then going to court to
claim the cost would be unlikely to succeed.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...a-small-claim/

You should write to the garage setting out your claim objectively but
not trying to tell them what caused the fault, so simply "excessive
vibration from drive shaft immediately following work by you on
bearings" Ask them to investigate and fix it .

Full instructions on using MoneyClaim (the most appropriate way to go)
are at
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-eng.pdfonline

No, there is a bunch of gobbledy gook JSON there and nothing else. :-(

I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level?

No.

Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

The latter, and the remedy is confined to fixing any damage that they
caused, so you can't expect to get a new drive train installed when
the fault they caused was to one bearing.

You can if that bearing is only available as a new drive train, or there
is reason to suppose that the bearing and its housing are both damaged.
Its not the 'whole drive train' Its a tube with a yoke at one end and a
flexible coupling at the otheer. It is that coupling that is damaged. It
may be fixable with just a new bearing or it may need a whole new unit.


You may need to have the
car examined by an expert (another garage for example) to show the
fault was caused by their mistake.

That cannot be proven, Another garage assessed it before I took it to
them and identified the *centre* bearing that was noisy but they
couldn't fix it so I took it to another place I have used. They replaced
the bearings and broke the coupling, but they will I am sure swear blind
it was broken already.


The cost of that examination and
report can be added to your claim.

The mechanic at the garage already identified the problem. I dont think
there is any disagreement on that point.


--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 08/10/2019 15:56, Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate !.

Er no. Just before I went into hoipsital for my cancer operatin I made
that mistake. They wanted to charge me £1500 for an MOT. I told them to
stop work and give me the car back. I had to threaten them with the
police. Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and took it
for a second MOT. It passed.

I then involved an official MOT man who failed it on a couple of minor
things. He had words with the workshop manager.

I then learnt that the same workshop manager who had tried to stiff me
years ago for £3000 quid for a new XJS rear diff when it only needed a
new oil seal, was involved.



Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.


This is not a back street grease moneky outfit. Its a decent firm that
does alot of work for commercial vehicles. I use them because they have
the headroom to get under my camper on a 4 poster.





--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/10/2019 15:56, Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
To be fair, I suspect they hadn't 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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate
!.

Er no. Just before I went into hoipsital for my cancer operatin I made
that mistake. They wanted to charge me £1500 for an MOT. I told them
to stop work and give me the car back. I had to threaten them with
the police. Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and
took it for a second MOT. It passed.

I then involved an official MOT man who failed it on a couple of minor
things. He had words with the workshop manager.

I then learnt that the same workshop manager who had tried to stiff me
years ago for £3000 quid for a new XJS rear diff when it only needed a
new oil seal, was involved.



Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.


This is not a back street grease moneky outfit. Its a decent firm that
does alot of work for commercial vehicles. I use them because they
have the headroom to get under my camper on a 4 poster.

Many years ago there used to be a Mercedes dealership in a town called
Blackpool - oop north.
I know for a fact that they just sandblasted the spark plugs, filtered the
engine oil and charged the customer for new.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 09:35:40 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I took my car in to have two centre prop shaft bearings replaced and
they have damaged the front coupling to the transfer box - it now has
play in it.

I wrote a letter by recorded delivery explaining why I knew that this
was the case, and asking them to contact me to take the matter forward.
They have ignored it.

I am not sure how to proceed, Assuming that this ends up in the small
claims court I am conscious of the need to proceed with caution. Should
I insist that they fix it? I am concerned that I am using a car that may
damage itself further if driven with an out of balance prop shaft. Or
should I get it fixed elsewhere, and claim the money back? The cost of
doing that ranges from a new 'spider bearing' at £36 plus labour through
an after market prop shaft assembly at £100 plus labour to a full Land
Rover OEM part at £200+ plus labour at main dealer prices.

My question is really how the court would look on each approach. I.e.
should I fix it and claim and if so at what level? Or should I take them
to court before fixing it so they have the option of fixing it for free?
And to what level should the (pretty old) car be fixed?

TIA

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

ISTM you could chuck a lot of money at this and end up with no redress.
You might as well pay up and put it down to experience.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
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.




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.

The short story is that you are expected to let the original
garage that ****ed up fix the problem, particularly now
that he does realise how it is supposed to be done.

While the small claims court may decide to force the
the original garage to pay for the repair you get done
elsewhere, there is more risk that they will decide that
you should have given the original garage the chance
to fix what they stuffed up because that is cheaper for
them because there is no labour cost involved.

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 05:29:27 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH

you should have given the original garage the chance
to fix what they stuffed up because that is cheaper for
them because there is no labour cost involved.

Can't you just shut your endlessly driveling senile gob, senile Rodent? LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:41:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 08/10/2019 14:57, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:35:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Yes. A court will expect you to have followed the pre-action
protocols’ and have tried to settle the claim before the last resort
of getting to court. Having another garage fix it without giving
the original garage an opportunity to do so and then going to court to
claim the cost would be unlikely to succeed.

Full instructions on using MoneyClaim (the most appropriate way to go)
are at
https://assets.publishing.service.go...-eng.pdfonline

No, there is a bunch of gobbledy gook JSON there and nothing else. :-(

Odd, doing the same for me as well now.

Try https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim



The latter, and the remedy is confined to fixing any damage that they
caused, so you can't expect to get a new drive train installed when
the fault they caused was to one bearing.

You can if that bearing is only available as a new drive train, or there
is reason to suppose that the bearing and its housing are both damaged.
Its not the 'whole drive train' Its a tube with a yoke at one end and a
flexible coupling at the otheer. It is that coupling that is damaged. It
may be fixable with just a new bearing or it may need a whole new unit.

If Rover sell it only as a complete unit that is what you can claim
for.

You may need to have the
car examined by an expert (another garage for example) to show the
fault was caused by their mistake.

That cannot be proven, Another garage assessed it before I took it to
them and identified the *centre* bearing that was noisy but they
couldn't fix it so I took it to another place I have used. They replaced
the bearings and broke the coupling, but they will I am sure swear blind
it was broken already.

That is a risk you face, However, remember you are working only on
balance of probabilities. Neither the garage you first used nor the
final one identified a faulty coupling upon initial examination. If
you ask the first garage to state that and then reexamine the coupler
and declare it is now damaged that puts you in a reasonably strong
position. Your expertise isn't of much interest to a court no matter
how extensive it may be, they will be looking for an external
independent opinion.

On 08/10/2019 14:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 14:26:31 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/10/2019 14:22, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:14:28 -0000 (UTC), 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 ?

It is because the EU puts a premium on "keeping the contract alive" and
inserted the requirement that the company providing an inadequate
service be allowed to fix it. (Consumer Rights Act 2015 S49 to 55.)

So I should write again reminding them that they have not advanced any
proposals to fix it and warning them that if they fail to respond I will
have no recourse but court?

Ignoring the previous non-reply, you can try. However, even if they
ignore you, and you get as far as a court issuing a summons, they can
still apply to have it put aside on the grounds "they missed it". At
which point a court will suspend any action to give them a chance to
respond.

I know that much, because we had a customer skip without paying (long
story) and they ignored all letters, and we got judgement by default. But
the magistrate commented that they could have applied to have the
judgement set aside on those grounds. (They didn't but then neither did
we see the money ....)

Send the letter as a signed for delivery and they can't claim to have
not received it.

Funny isn't it, if you are sent a letter demanding payment by a utility
company, bank or credit card company and threatening court action, you
are DEEMED to have received it, without any proof.

SteveW

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 16:31:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

One assumes it has been delivered and signed for...

One assumes. I have the slip

And checked on line that it's been signed for?

My experience with the law is generally at the low levels if you have
all your ducks in a row at a small claims hearing half the time the
other party doesn't even show up and you get judgment by default.

Of course getting a claim stamped by the court doesnt get you money
And you may need to request that from bailiffs etc.
But the publicity is not great for the firm is it?

The summons quite often gets them to cough up to avoid the courtcase
and, provided you have a good case and have "done the right things",
the inevitable judgement against them. This has far more clout as
banks don't like lending to entities with judgments against them or
may witdraw or restrict any current borrowing.

Of course you'll find the very rotten apple occasionally that'll just
"disappear" but most companies aren't that rotten.

I wonder if they award costs. Probably do if you have made genuine
efforts to reach an agreement.

Yes, they do, any relevant documented costs including the court fees.
I think you can also claim a small amout for "incidentals" like going
to the PO to get the RD letters sent, phone calls, your time and
inconvience in having to prepare and bring the case as well.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 08/10/2019 21:41, Peter Parry wrote:
Neither the garage you first used nor the
final one identified a faulty coupling upon initial examination.
The second will claim that they did


--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 09/10/2019 10:05, Jethro_uk wrote:
One of my Dads friends used to work in the legal department at a large
company (in reality he was the legal department ...) about once a year
he'd have to rush to court because a disgruntled customer who knew how to
apply the law had managed to serve a winding up order. So it can be
done ....
I threatened the Ford Motor company with legal action once

Got paid instantly.

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 08/10/2019 16:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and took it for a
second MOT. It passed.

Ex-MOT tester neighnour has been looking at an exhaust problem
with the butchers ageing Nissan 4x4.

Seems that the front cat (there are two) is blocked so the
exhaust is blowing back into the engine, out though manifold
gaskets, etc. engine management light is on, there is oil and
crap everywhere under the bonnet, and vehicle only
goes up a hill in 1st gear.

Back street MOT place near Amberley gave it a new MOT certificate,
no questions asked, so he could tax it and carry on using it until
it had a new front exhaust.

Never trust any MOT. They might show the mileage and available
to inspect online but there are still plenty of dodgy places who
will issue a clean MOT for a 'favour'.

On 08/10/2019 17:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/10/2019 15:56, Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
To be fair, I suspect they hadn't 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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate
!.

Er no. Just before I went into hoipsital for my cancer operatin I made
that mistake. They wanted to charge me £1500 for an MOT. I told them
to stop work and give me the car back. I had to threaten them with
the police. Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and
took it for a second MOT. It passed.

I then involved an official MOT man who failed it on a couple of minor
things. He had words with the workshop manager.

I then learnt that the same workshop manager who had tried to stiff me
years ago for £3000 quid for a new XJS rear diff when it only needed a
new oil seal, was involved.



Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.


This is not a back street grease moneky outfit. Its a decent firm that
does alot of work for commercial vehicles. I use them because they
have the headroom to get under my camper on a 4 poster.

Many years ago there used to be a Mercedes dealership in a town called
Blackpool - oop north.
I know for a fact that they just sandblasted the spark plugs, filtered the
engine oil and charged the customer for new.



You'll have a job to filter dirty diesel engine oil. How many people
in Blackpool can afford a decent merc. Are these clapped out taxi's ?.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
To be fair, I suspect they hadn‘t 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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate !.

Or even a Land Rover specialist. Must be plenty of those in Little
England, surely?

Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.

Quite.

--
*You can't teach an old mouse new clicks *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Pamela wrote:
Out of interest, why would any back street MOT testing station give a
ceritficate to an unroadworthy car?

Surely it wouldn't ever be worth their while unless it was sweetened
with a backhander?

That's exactly how it works. Mate paid 80 quid for one recently. The car
wasn't unsafe - just had some features which would fail an MOT.

--
*Red meat is not bad for you. Fuzzy green meat is bad for you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/10/2019 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:
Out of interest, why would any back street MOT testing station give a
ceritficate to an unroadworthy car?

Surely it wouldn't ever be worth their while unless it was sweetened
with a backhander?

That's exactly how it works. Mate paid 80 quid for one recently. The car
wasn't unsafe - just had some features which would fail an MOT.


can you post details so it can be reported?

if not then you are also guilty of a crime.

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2019 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:
Out of interest, why would any back street MOT testing station give a
ceritficate to an unroadworthy car?

Surely it wouldn't ever be worth their while unless it was sweetened
with a backhander?

That's exactly how it works. Mate paid 80 quid for one recently. The
car wasn't unsafe - just had some features which would fail an MOT.


can you post details so it can be reported?

if not then you are also guilty of a crime.

Anecdotal, pet. Same as 99% of the stuff on here.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/10/2019 13:20, Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 16:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and took it for a
second MOT. It passed.

Ex-MOT tester neighnour has been looking at an exhaust problem
with the butchers ageing Nissan 4x4.

Seems that the front cat (there are two) is blocked so the
exhaust is blowing back into the engine, out though manifold
gaskets, etc. engine management light is on, there is oil and
crap everywhere under the bonnet,Â* and vehicle only
goes up a hill in 1st gear.

That is not an MOT failure
MOT id concerned with safety.
And emissions at the exhaust.
Not emissions from the manifld

Back street MOT place near Amberley gave it a new MOT certificate,
no questions asked, so he could tax it and carry on using it until
it had a new front exhaust.

Never trust any MOT. They might show the mileage and available
to inspect online but there are still plenty of dodgy places who
will issue a clean MOT for a 'favour'.

Indeed, but again the genuine MOT inspector confirmed that the car was
safe to drive excopt for the state of two tyres - these he reckoned were
cut endough to see the steel belting.

Ther were, just, if you took a magnifying glass to them.




--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 08/10/2019 17:29, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/10/2019 15:56, Andrew wrote:
On 08/10/2019 11:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
To be fair, I suspect they hadn't 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.

So take it to a LandRover dealer and pay the appropriate labour rate
!.

Er no. Just before I went into hoipsital for my cancer operatin I made
that mistake. They wanted to charge me £1500 for an MOT. I told them
to stop work and give me the car back. I had to threaten them with
the police. Eventually I paid for a bit of work to the handbrake and
took it for a second MOT. It passed.

I then involved an official MOT man who failed it on a couple of minor
things. He had words with the workshop manager.

I then learnt that the same workshop manager who had tried to stiff me
years ago for £3000 quid for a new XJS rear diff when it only needed a
new oil seal, was involved.



Back Street grease-monkey outfits are hit and miss when you have a
non-straight forward vehicle, unless you are certain that they are
specialists in that make of car.


This is not a back street grease moneky outfit. Its a decent firm that
does alot of work for commercial vehicles. I use them because they
have the headroom to get under my camper on a 4 poster.

Many years ago there used to be a Mercedes dealership in a town called
Blackpool - oop north.
I know for a fact that they just sandblasted the spark plugs, filtered
the
engine oil and charged the customer for new.



You'll have a job to filter dirty diesel engine oil.

How many people in Blackpool can afford a decent merc.

200* mercs with an easily fixable fault dont cost
much. Mate of mine gets them off ebay and flogs
them off at a decent profit when fixed.

Are these clapped out taxi's ?.

None of the ones my mate sells are.
We dont have many merc taxis at all.

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 05:43:48 +1100, AlexK, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

How many people in Blackpool can afford a decent merc.

200* mercs

NOBODY talked to you, senile cretin from Oz!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On 09/10/2019 16:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/10/2019 14:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Pamela wrote:
Out of interest, why would any back street MOT testing station give a
ceritficate to an unroadworthy car?

Surely it wouldn't ever be worth their while unless it was sweetened
with a backhander?

That's exactly how it works. Mate paid 80 quid for one recently. The
car wasn't unsafe - just had some features which would fail an MOT.


can you post details so it can be reported?

if not then you are also guilty of a crime.

Anecdotal, pet. Same as 99% of the stuff on here.


a lie?