Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JamesV6CDX]

I have lodged a case in the Small Claims court against a local garage and MOT testing station. I've done it more as a matter of principle, than to recoup the cost, because they blatantly tried to rip me off.

I took our 2011 Astra for MOT last week. I made my request clear - "Please can you do an MOT test, and let me know the result". He told me the MOT would be at 10am the next morning. I left the car with them, so they had it first thing next day.

I checked the MOT History website at around 10am and it had already been done. A years pass, with advisories for a bulb, and the rear brake pads "wearing thin".

I thought "Great, I'll go and get it later" and thought no more of it.

About 3pm, call from the garage "We're just finishing up doing your rear brakes, they needed doing, to get through the MOT test. Car will be ready for you in half an hour".

So I got myself down there in a flash. The car was not in the workshop, but parked behind other cars, stone cold.

I went into "reception" and spoke to the only staff member I could see, the stereotypical spotty Yoof.

I asked him the obvious questions:

1) If it needed brake pads to get through the MOT, how come it went through the MOT with an advisory?

2) If I needed brake pads to get through - why isn't there one result which is a failure, and then a further result for the re-test where the pass is then issued?

3) If it needed brake pads to pass the MOT, how come the MOT pass was issued at 10am, and you phoned me at 3 to say you were still doing the brake pads?

4) Why didn't you call me to discuss any work needed, because I haven't authorised anything you've done, apart from the MOT?

He looked like he didn't even understand the purpose of my questions, let alone have the ability to answer them. He just kept repeating "You'll have to speak to the boss but he aint here. No cash no car"

I begrudgingly paid the bill using a card, because I know I can't take the car legally until I have (the law is an ass sometimes). I also refused to sign the invoice as they asked, and took my unsigned copy with me. Interestingly, in the signature box, it says "I authorise the above work to be undertaken" which of course I never did.

I emailed the garage my questions that night, and the boss called me the next day. I was driving and he left a voicemail. It was basically a load of abusive hot air,  borderline criminally abusive, where I was basically told to go forth and multiply and wouldn't be getting anything back.

So I've taken it straight to small claims - exhibiting his voicemail digitally, so the Judge can hear for himself why my attempt to sort it informally didn't work.

I've asked for a partial refund - the labour charge for doing the pads (I'd have never agreed to pay that, I'd have done it myself) plus the difference between the extortionate amount the garage charged me for the pads, vs what I would have paid for them had I purchased them online to fit myself.

All of course backed with the appropriate evidence.

We shall await the outcome!

[JamesV6CDX]

I should add. Loads of reviews online to say they do unauthorised work. Often to female customers.

[Andy B]

Does the garage know what you do (did?) for a living?

[Doctor Gollum]

Did they actually change the pads?

[Andy B]

I had a motorbike place do similar. They did the 1st MOT on scooter I had & changed the pads because they said they were worn. A few years later, giving them the benefit of doubt they did the same to my TDM when I took it for its MOT. I told them I wouldn't be back & never have.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Yes James, these rouge garages are still out there that is for sure.  Even my favourite, “trusted” garages can let me down and try it on, but fortunately not do what yours did and actually do the job. 3 years ago they did my MOT ( I often used to alternate between my Vx dealer and them). They advised that the brake pipes were severely corroded. I did not believe it, so would not authorise the work.

As soon as possible I got under my car, checked all the pipes, could not see any “severe corrosion” so just cleaned them all up and sprayed them with a protector.  Next year went back to Vx for my MOT; full pass and no advisories.  Nor has there been since about any pipe corrosion!

So, yes, like with Kwikfittup, there are certainly those trying to create business!

All the best with your claim James.  I know you understand the law, but just one point you didn’t cover.  Have you served them with a letter of legal intent, with a specified period for a response?  In civil law that is a requirement, and in my experience has always brought me the results I demanded before we had to go to court.  Last time £950+ back from my Vx dealer for a faulty “out of warranty” a/c compressor.

All the best

[dave the builder]

In order to enter the data and register a pass on the VTS device (MOT computer) the NT (nominated tester) would need to be logged on the VTS device as doing an MOT test ,and enter the brake test results (which must be within the range/tolerance to pass) ,visual inspection of brake thickness during the MOT should have been noted on the sheet if below minimum tolerance, along with any other "faults" found .
when logged on to the VTS device ,during a test , the NT is not allowed to do repairs or adjustments ,just follow the test procedure . any faults MUST be entered on the VTS device , and if that results in an MOT fail ,it MUST be recorded as such .
any required work can then be done (with the presenter's permission)
then the NT should log on to the VTS device , do a partial retest ,and enter the results on the device ,and issue either a pass or another fail . I say that because , in the case where brake or suspension components etc are changed , a new brake test should be done .
In this case ,the garage will say "we tested the car first thing ,the car passed first test, there was some confusion ,mix up ,miscommunication and brake pads and a bulb got fitted by mistake later"
If they don't use that defence then they admit deliberate disregard for test procedure ,which would leave them open to sanctions from DVSA .

"spotty youth fall guy" will get the blame , it's up to the SCC "judge" to decide IF a part refund is "appropriate"

as a matter of principle , "unauthorised work being done"  I agree with James 100% 

the time and cost and hassle of bringing a SCC claim ,not so much 

DVSA could/should be notified of the "deviation from test procedure" but if the garage / test station has history ,they will also have excuses and lies in place as to what went wrong ,probably already have sanctions in place.
 (sanctions = it's like a points system ,similar to a driving licence )

Best of luck 
 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

I encountered an MOT problem with a Mazda RX8 owned by Mrs Opti.

It failed the first fast idle test. Not unusual.

For the second fast idle test the test sheet simply read 'NOT DONE'.

The MOT garage insisted the car had failed I argued the test procedures had not been followed and it  was therefore a 'non-test'.

I contacted VOSA who agreed with me. Full MOT refund plus £100 of compo.


The car sailed through its MOT at another garage using the Italian tune up method on the way to the test centre.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

It was either number 2 or number 3.

[ronnyd]

Which Mrs Opti ? Istr there have been quite a few. 
Is the current version the one who throws laptops or is there a new one now ?   

It was either number 2 or number 3.

Christ,  one's more than enough. 

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

He should be old enough to know better. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

He should be old enough to know better. 

I identify as 34.

[Doctor Gollum]

He should be old enough to know better. 

How's that going for you

I identify as 34.

[Nick W]

He should be old enough to know better. 

I identify present as 34 months.

FTFY