Charged For Parts Not Required

[kelfoan]

I took my car to a garage due to having a leak running in the boot. The garage said it was a seal on one of the air vents that was perished and letting in water. They charged me £90 for parts and labour. However the leak continued so I returned to the garage. They had another look and this time they used sealant as to try and stop water entering the boot. Again, this did not work. I therefore returned to the garage and amicably asked that either they gave me a refund or made further investigations into the cause of the leak. These conversations were all very amicable as both myself and the garage could not understand how the water was entering the boot. The garage said they would give me a refund as they had spent a lot of time trying to trace the leak without success and could not see what else they could do. . However I was told that they would only refund the labour and not the cost of the air vent they originally fitted. I said that this was not acceptable as clearly it was not the air vent causing the leak and so did not need replacing in the first place. Eventually the garage refunded the full £90 but said I was not welcome there again as they were out of pocket. I was totally shocked by this response as I thought myself and the garage and myself were getting along fine trying to sort the problem. My question is: are the garage legally allowed to deduct for the parts they used (as clearly they did not need replacing) . If someone could also advise what legislation covers this scenario. Thanks in advance

[Old_Geezer]

Might be better in the Law forum. I can see both points of view. It wasn't fixing the issue, but on the other hand it was fitted in good faith given the symptoms and diagnosis, and you did come away with new parts as they didn't take it out and put your old parts back. Pity this sort of situation isn't covered by insurance.

[alavahalf]

You have to sympathize with the garage .. they were on a hiding to nothing with your car. Water leaks entering a car are often notoriously difficult to locate. So time does have to be spent trying to locate the leak, often with two people involved. There is usually very little to see for the time and effort involved.
Personally I would say the garage were very understanding. They have spent time and money on your car and it has cost them, not you. Can you imagine what they did with your old air vent when they removed it and replaced it with a new one and did so in good faith, yes .. it went in the bin. You are now the owner of a new air vent, that with hindsight, you never needed.
In theory they could have asked for the new vent back when you wanted a full refund. That would have left you requiring a new vent !

Going by your final two lines it sounds as though you are planning legal action against a garage who gave you time, labour and parts .. and your money back !
No wonder they said "you are not welcome there again".

[kelfoan]

Old Geezer, the garage were unable to put back original parts as they had been binned. My point is that I told them the symptoms and they charged a price to rectify the cause. I didn't say " the air vent needs changing" I said I "had a leak in the boot". They are supposed to be the experts . So why should i be penalised for there inability to correctly diagnose and rectify the problem . How about if they had changed the rear windscreen thinking that was the problem, then possibly moving on to changing the whole tailgate, should I be expected to pay for those parts that weren't required to solve the problem?


Alvahalf. I agree that the garage were on a hiding to nothing, but that is something they should have thought about before they took on the job . They could have refused to take the work. I agree that time has to be spent locating the problem. I would have been more than happy to have paid any amount labour costs involved as long as they solved the problem. Although I have a new air vent there was nothing wrong with the old one, so why should I pay for it? If they had asked for the new vent back then they would have had to put the car back to its original state, which clearly they couldn't do. I have no intention of taking any legal action (why would I, I am not out of pocket) but what really annoyed me was the way I was told not to come back when clearly the situation was due to their inability to do a job they had charged for. I just wanted legal clarification on the situation for my own piece of mind. Indeed i I was found to be legally wrong (ie garage can charge for the part fitted) I would have no hesitation in returning to the garage to pay for it.

[ToraToraTora]

the problem with these cases is that they are not easily diagnosable and the garage has to do some investigation, that can take hours of labour and often does need parts swapping to illuminate potential causes. I can see both sides here, to the customer the garage can appear to be effectively using the customers money to solve by trial and error. To the garage the customer can appear ungrateful for their efforts. I know several mechanic shops and they would never touch this sort of issue because they cannot win and often end up out of pocket. I'm not offering any final opinion here just a discussion of the problem from both sides. Now on the leak, what's the exact make and model of car and what exactly has water ingress?

[gingejbee]

Personally, I'd have accepted the refund for labour....and considered myself fortunate. However, you've now identified yourself to them as an awkward so-and-so and one that they could do without. Live with it and move on.

[tonyav]

You'd have most probably been better off by having a bodyshop take a look at it. Personally I'd check the boot / hatch sealing rubber first.

[vulcan42]

You say there was nothing wrong with the the seal on the air vent but in your opening you say the seal was perished.The fact it didn't cure the water leak is neither here nor there, it needed replacing.

[kelfoan]

Tora Tora tora. Its a 2014 Ford Fiesta. The water is evident in the spare tyre well where it collects, but appears to be running down from the left had side above rear arch.(it is wetting the carpet lining on the boot wall) Unable to see exactly., The water is not evident if you put a water on car(eg after rain) however it is collecting and then when I drive the motion is causing it to release into the boot. The garage claim to have left a hose on it for an hour and there was no leak. This would be right as the water only becomes evident after it starts moving about when driving,. I did tell the garage this right at the start that they would need to drive it as well before the water appears. Obviously they didn't do the road test otherwise they would have noticed!
Tonyav. The garage said they had checked all the linings and seals without any problems. . Thanks for all your replies.

[Mamyalynne]

Having run a vehicle repair business I concur with the above comments, water ingress is amongst the hardest things to track and solve in some models - your best bet is to draw a line under this now as you have been fully refunded and move on.

[ToraToraTora]

get a smoke machine, put it in the boot and watch for where the smoke comes out around the seal where the tail gate meets the body. They are designed to leak and channel the water round. If the channel gets blocked or the rubber is less than optimum water will get in. Here is Ed China using the technique on the interior of a DB7:

[mjwman]

Not the garages fault. They seem to have acted correctly and yes I would not want such a customer again.
On a more positive not, surely you could help to diagnose it.
Remove as much trim as you can its nit difficult and puff talc all around the suspect area. You will then see from which direction the water is coming from.