Leagl position?

[Griffo]

Xtractorfan - how do you remove a stubborn injector please?

 

[television]

There are specialist kits on the market that remove injectors and glow plugs painlessly

 

[Griffo]

TV - are they costly? You wouldn't have web-link by any chance?

 

[Dave Brooker]

Does anyone know what the legal position is in these circumstances please?

Sometimes jobs don't go to plan, it's not the garages fault that your injectors are siezed in the head.

It's your car, and the cost of repairs to it are your responsibility.

 

[television]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=370126144793

Most of the info that I have is in trade journals

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Sometimes jobs don't go to plan, it's not the garages fault that your injectors are seized in the head.

It's your car, and the cost of repairs to it are your responsibility.

It may be his car, but the acid test is "who did it"?

He was quite happy with the car until the events above developed the way they did. The garage, by persuading him of the need for the work, not warning of this possible complication and then not completing the work as agreed, have left him worse off than when he started.

I'll stick with the points made previously.

 

[Griffo]

Many thanks Malcolm.

 

[Dave Brooker]

It may be his car, but the acid test is "who did it"?

He was quite happy with the car until the events above developed the way they did. The garage, by persuading him of the need for the work, not warning of this possible complication and then not completing the work as agreed, have left him worse off than when he started.

I'll stick with the points made previously.

The garage are clearly correct in their diagnoses, otherwise the injector would have come out without any issues.

This blame culture we've sleep walked into has to stop.

 

[kebo57]

Hi griffo
I have a slide hammer pulling tool that doesn't seem to damage the injectors
I pulled all five injectors on a ML 270 & re-seated them £60.00.
I made this for my own use but a guy near me was stuck so I helped him out.

I'm near to Blackburn & would try the tool
but I'm not a timed served mechanic like some here

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=35511

Kevin

 

[Xtractorfan]

Xtractorfan - how do you remove a stubborn injector please?

I do bodywork , but from time to time we come across problems like this, last one done on my premises was a Merc van, stubborn injector, tried all the known remedies and got rid of the gunk, but injector wouldnt move, got an engineering guy to make up a clamp from threaded bar, hooked the injector and basically unscrewed it, bit by bit.. 4 hrs work, fitted a new injector as we reckoned the old one was just too much bother,.. The engineering guy told me he had done one the previous week and had to weld the studded bar to the injector to get it out..but the mechanic had already broken the top off the injector.. Oh and the reason we did the work on the van was because we use this guy to do parts runs for us..

Actually last one done on my premises was tonite 7,30 pm on my own S320cdi .took me 15 mins, and that was cos it started raining half way thru. it started smoking and chuffing yesterday on the overtaking lne of the motorway and the EPC light came on and car lost power.. and was smoking like a train.. embarassing..
see if i can post the pics of the old and new copper washers

See pics next post..

 

[Xtractorfan]

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/a...ment.php?attachmentid=8373&stc=1&d=1249598275
The pics of the old injector washer and the new one about to be ftted

 

[jberks]

|I have some sympathy for the garage that did it. In their minds they tried to be as honest as they could but on the other side, their skills are clearly lacking if
a) They didn't foresee and forewarn that this could go pear shaped.
b) They couldn't sort it (when others on here say that it is sortable).
If you go legal, then the answer is likely to be bring it back and we'll fix it. I wouldn't want to do that.
So if it were mine, I'd cut my losses and get it fixed elsewhere.

 

[teddycatkin]

Just a thought on the legal position - --assuming the car was running fine before you took it into them--imagine you are a total non car/tech person ---car comes back not running fine/damaged for whatever reason ?
Two options --1. you take it back they fix it back to its normal running state.
(they must have some kind of insurance to cover damage to customers cars)
2.Having been refused the first option you take it somewhere else to be fixed back to running order and give you them the bill ?

 

[Alex M Grieve]

|I have some sympathy for the garage that did it. In their minds they tried to be as honest as they could but on the other side, their skills are clearly lacking if
a) They didn't foresee and forewarn that this could go pear shaped.
b) They couldn't sort it (when others on here say that it is sortable).
If you go legal, then the answer is likely to be bring it back and we'll fix it. I wouldn't want to do that.
So if it were mine, I'd cut my losses and get it fixed elsewhere.

As ever Jberks, a simple and pragmatic view.

In the posts I made I endeavored to portray how the law would tackle this situation, which was the OP's question. I agree with the points you make.

I can also understand comments such as,

"Sometimes jobs don't go to plan, it's not the garages fault that your injectors are seized in the head.

It's your car, and the cost of repairs to it are your responsibility"

And "The garage are clearly correct in their diagnoses, otherwise the injector would have come out without any issues.

This blame culture we've sleep walked into has to stop". (Dave Brooker).

To take these comments at face value would however suggest a position that acknowledges that whenever the man in the street accepts advice from experts, which goes wrong and leaves the individual worse off and the expert can walk away from the mess, then because they are the owner of the property it is purely the owners problem and liability.

That would be a rogues' charter - little old ladies are badly served enough by unscrupulous tradesmen in several areas. To create "open season", without liability for the provider would be very harsh on the customer and would destroy the credibility of the providers. Then society would need laws to regulate the situation. But we already have them, so let us not relive history.

It is pretty plain in this case that the garage offered an expert view, quoted for the work (there is no note that they expressed any reservation or explained possible complications or the risks that the affair might escalate), got past the point of no return for restoring the goods to their original condition, etc.

Jberks is correct - if they couldn't do it, they should not necessarily be asked to try again, but it does not make them any less liable for the outcome.

There is a whole issue here (and we saw it in the case of Lulu01 and the big servicing bill) for suppliers giving a clear indication of what is wrong, what needs to be done, what the downside risks are (complications, side effects, loss of function as a result). This results in the customer giving "informed consent" - that is they agree to the process having understood and agreed the risks, costs and possible consequences. They then sign to agree that.

In many garages, the customer does sign for the work to be done - in many they do not. But I would like to think that all those who sign actually understand what is going to happen, and the significance of the signature. If they do not, it is not "informed consent" and would not be upheld.

 

[Griffo]

It is probably pertinent to add the following:

At collection from the previous service (only a few weeks ago), it was pointed out to me that certain things needed doing. Amongst them were, new rear brake hoses, new engine mountings and No. 5 injector had carbon around it. Regarding the latter, it was clearly not upsetting the running of the engine as, the garage said they had only discovered it because they saw the carbon around it.

The car had been hooked-up to their computers and that hadn't identified it as a probem and they confirmed it wasn't 'chuffing'.

As I have been undecided about changing the car and the cost of doing so was not very attractive, I wanted to have a clear idea of potential cost before deciding what to do.

Accordingly, I emailed the garage proprietor and asked for a fixed cost for the 3 jobs mentioned above. At first he was a bit reluctant but I sent an email saying "you work on the car, so know it. You identified the works needed and recommended their solutions, so the jobs should hold no surprises".

I also explained to him that my reasons for wanting a firm price was that "my days of endorsing open cheques for car repairs/servicing are long past" and "to avoid any misunderstandings". He then gave me a price and I replied asking for a breakdown of the same (just curious really). That was supplied.

It seems to me that he could have refused to quote a price if he wished and certainly could/should have picked-up on my use of the words "no surprises".

I really don't see what else I could/should have done to avoid this situation?

 

[Dave Brooker]

And "The garage are clearly correct in their diagnoses, otherwise the injector would have come out without any issues.

This blame culture we've sleep walked into has to stop". (Dave Brooker).

To take these comments at face value would however suggest a position that acknowledges that whenever the man in the street accepts advice from experts, which goes wrong and leaves the individual worse off and the expert can walk away from the mess, then because they are the owner of the property it is purely the owners problem and liability.

But we all know that repairing complex cars is not a precise science, do you think it's correct to try to use the law to force a garage to repair the unrepairable?

If while repairing a car, the job turns out to be more complex than at first thought, why should the garage not charge for their extra labour?

It's OP's car, and as such problems with it are his responsibility.

 

[television]

But we all know that repairing complex cars is not a precise science, do you think it's correct to try to use the law to force a garage to repair the unrepairable?

If while repairing a car, the job turns out to be more complex than at first thought, why should the garage not charge for their extra labour?

It's OP's car, and as such problems with it are his responsibility.

Dont you think that it would be fair to point out that it may not be straight forward in the first place,,we all know that injectors can be difficult things at times.

I said it earlier in the post that I point things out to the customer, either saying leave it,,or if we try there is the danger of XXX.

If the garage had the correct tools, then maybe they would have done a better job

 

[Alex M Grieve]

Don't you think that it would be fair to point out that it may not be straight forward in the first place,,we all know that injectors can be difficult things at times.

I said it earlier in the post that I point things out to the customer, either saying leave it,,or if we try there is the danger of XXX.

If the garage had the correct tools, then maybe they would have done a better job

That is fair Malcolm. I have certainly been in discussions in the past as a result of which I have decided that a job would just not be economic - and on a couple of occasions that has meant that I could no longer run the car and had to move it on -with its defect declared to the purchaser.

In this case, a "worst case estimate" might well have enabled the OP to make a similar decision, or run it until it fails, then break it, or sell it (buyer beware).

As it is, I don't think we can rely on the average motorist appreciating that "we all know that repairing cars is not a precise science".

 

[Miffy]

I am not sure I entirely agree that the garage is at fault here.

Something similar happened to me a few weeks back.

I took my car in for them to check a scraping noise at the rear offside., they said, that will be the hand brake shoes sir, cost you £xx think it was something like 80. Received a call from them a bit later. Hello Sir, we have taken your brakes off and found that who ever replaced them before had not secured them in correctly and they have scored the drum surface to a dangerous depth.

Total cost ended up £330 for 2 new back disks and shoes. As the brake shoes were badly damaged, they could not possibly replace them to the same working manner as when they took the car off me. So I am more than happy that a £80 job tuned out to cost me a fair bit more.

All work is undertaken on the premise that nothing else is broken and that the items require fixing are replaceable. If they had called me and said, sorry sir the disk took us over 2 hours to remove as it was rusted in place, I would deem that acceptable.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

I am not sure I entirely agree that the garage is at fault here.

Something similar happened to me a few weeks back.

I took my car in for them to check a scraping noise at the rear offside., they said, that will be the hand brake shoes sir, cost you £xx think it was something like 80. Received a call from them a bit later. Hello Sir, we have taken your brakes off and found that who ever replaced them before had not secured them in correctly and they have scored the drum surface to a dangerous depth.

Total cost ended up £330 for 2 new back disks and shoes. As the brake shoes were badly damaged, they could not possibly replace them to the same working manner as when they took the car off me. So I am more than happy that a £80 job tuned out to cost me a fair bit more.

All work is undertaken on the premise that nothing else is broken and that the items require fixing are replaceable. If they had called me and said, sorry sir the disk took us over 2 hours to remove as it was rusted in place, I would deem that acceptable.

I think your case is fair Miffy. The garage discovered an unforeseen problem and repaired it correctly once you had authorized it.