Full Version Water Pump Job On 3lt
FYI
Have just found out manifold R&R on this engine is estimated as CAW 160 in the Cit Invoicing Times document, thus 1h 30mins.
cheers
G
Hi all
So went on Monday again to speak to garage and they deny everything. I brought with me all documents I have, in print, with highlights, showed them to the boss, offered it all for reading at home, but their answer -and line of argument- is that "I don't care about all this, what matters is how much it took *us* to do it" -his words-. He also informed me that I should know that the person that did my car is the fastest of their staff -because I had pointed out that "XXX is slow and we know it" the previous time I met him (he had kept silent back then)-.
When I said that this doens't leave me any other option but to proceed as Consumer Direct has advised me -i.e. write a recorded letter asking for a reduction of bill based on the evidence found-, he said "fine, it'll be fairly easy for XXX to write a list (of problems encountered) that will prove that it took us 15 hours to do the job". I then remarked that such a list may be of questionnable value as there's no proof for anything and anybody could write any list showing that the job took them 5, 15, or 40 hours. BTW the only thing they had told me went wrong *before I complain* was the removal or the manifold throttle body -which took them 1h30min they say-. In the meanwhile, I found out that it was wrong judgement them having taken this road, but anyway.
His line of argument is not strong I think, as my XM is really average or even above average condition, and all the people -indies and amateurs- that did the same job on similar condition+age cars, in the UK, in France, in Hungary, and even in Brazil (!), couldn't have been *so* terribly lucky as to have no problem at all doing it in between 3 and 7 hours. In other words, there's no reason *whatsoever* that my car would have been an "extreme", an "outlier", a "sampling freak" as said in statistics. In other words, something else is wrong.
So I'll proceed with a recorded letter and see where it goes -there's no way I'll leave this go, although I'm loosing steam: I've let go in the past and discovered that the feeling of having been unfairly treated follows and annoys you for life...-.
Consumer Direct say if the letter doens't work (which I know it probably won't) they'll refer me to Trade Standards.
Thanks for listening and all thoughts welcome.
cheers
George
So went on Monday again to speak to garage and they deny everything. I brought with me all documents I have, in print, with highlights, showed them to the boss, offered it all for reading at home, but their answer -and line of argument- is that "I don't care about all this, what matters is how much it took *us* to do it" -his words-. He also informed me that I should know that the person that did my car is the fastest of their staff -because I had pointed out that "XXX is slow and we know it" the previous time I met him (he had kept silent back then)-.
When I said that this doens't leave me any other option but to proceed as Consumer Direct has advised me -i.e. write a recorded letter asking for a reduction of bill based on the evidence found-, he said "fine, it'll be fairly easy for XXX to write a list (of problems encountered) that will prove that it took us 15 hours to do the job". I then remarked that such a list may be of questionnable value as there's no proof for anything and anybody could write any list showing that the job took them 5, 15, or 40 hours. BTW the only thing they had told me went wrong *before I complain* was the removal or the manifold throttle body -which took them 1h30min they say-. In the meanwhile, I found out that it was wrong judgement them having taken this road, but anyway.
His line of argument is not strong I think, as my XM is really average or even above average condition, and all the people -indies and amateurs- that did the same job on similar condition+age cars, in the UK, in France, in Hungary, and even in Brazil (!), couldn't have been *so* terribly lucky as to have no problem at all doing it in between 3 and 7 hours. In other words, there's no reason *whatsoever* that my car would have been an "extreme", an "outlier", a "sampling freak" as said in statistics. In other words, something else is wrong.
So I'll proceed with a recorded letter and see where it goes -there's no way I'll leave this go, although I'm loosing steam: I've let go in the past and discovered that the feeling of having been unfairly treated follows and annoys you for life...-.
Consumer Direct say if the letter doens't work (which I know it probably won't) they'll refer me to Trade Standards.
Thanks for listening and all thoughts welcome.
cheers
George
| QUOTE (jorgy9 @ Mar 12 2009, 16:47 PM) |
| the person that did my car is the fastest of their staff "fine, it'll be fairly easy for XXX to write a list (of problems encountered) that will prove that it took us 15 hours to do the job". cheers George |
Hi George if that was the fastest man in the shop
I would hate to see the slowest man (if he worked for me well he would not anymore)Also in proving the time taken to do the said job I hope he lists the many tea breaks, chats with other staff/customers and doing a 8 hour round trip home for lunch
cheers
Mick
Hi Mick
I know...I know...the more u think about it, the more absurd it sounds...
...and to think that one of the longest jobs on an XM is to replace the DIRAVI steering rack...12-14 hours to do it....and they needed 15 hours for a waterpump...mad-mad-mad....!!
cheers
G
| QUOTE |
| he said "fine, it'll be fairly easy for XXX to write a list (of problems encountered) that will prove that it took us 15 hours to do the job" |
Why wasn't this list supplied to you, the paying customer?
| QUOTE (Jan-hendrik @ Mar 15 2009, 02:46 AM) | ||
Why wasn't this list supplied to you, the paying customer? |
Hi Jan
...because they thought I'd hapilly accept to be charged 9 hours for a waterpump job that supposedly took 15hrs and a few other people report to have done in around 3-6 hours at home!
Seriously, they never provide any such list (just a summary 3-4 points describing the job on the bill). They've not rang me either to inform me when they (supposedly) saw the job was going to take too long.
So now I'll get my customised "on order" list!
I imagine how it'll read:
........
"Item 3.5.2.b. Top left engine mount, 3rd bolt on the left was seized solid and took us 23mins for releasing rather than the expected 1min."
.......
I think it'll take them another 15hr to write this list!! Do u think they'll charge me for that also?!?!
cheers
G
Hi George,
Having been on the other end of this argument, I can tell you that unless he can PROVE that he encountered problems sufficient to make the labour he charged reasonable, it's not a fight he can win. Writing a list, after the fact, of problems he claims to have had, doesn't prove anything. I had this problem with an Alfa 105 Spider that came in for an outer sill. I estimated £1000 to do the job, with paint etc, assuming there would be some rot in the inner sill and inner wings which would need repairing. When I too the cutting wheel to the car, it emerged that it had had two cover sills bodged on over an inner sill that was barely there, and the bottom 2 inches of the door pillar was missing. The shell was therefore out of true, and there was nearly an inch of filler in the bottom of the wings. By the time it was all back together properly and painted I had spent 2 weeks on the car! Thankfully I took photographs as I went along, so I didn't lose as much money as I could have done, but by the time the customer had threatened me with Trading Standards, had the car inspected by an Alfa secialist and generally caused me stress and lost working time, it was better to come to an agreement over what he would pay. The fact that he had said "it costs what it costs, I just want it done right" seemed to carry no weight with him.
Ironically, that guy ended up being one of my best customers!
In the end, no trader wants any involvement with Trading Standards, so stick to your guns. If he's overcharged you, he knows it, and it's not worth the time and aggravation for him to fight it. If you make him a sensible offer - 6 hours? - and state that if he accepts you will pay immediately, but if not you will go to Trading Standards, I would have thought any sane trader would have to bite the bullet and accept.
Neil
Having been on the other end of this argument, I can tell you that unless he can PROVE that he encountered problems sufficient to make the labour he charged reasonable, it's not a fight he can win. Writing a list, after the fact, of problems he claims to have had, doesn't prove anything. I had this problem with an Alfa 105 Spider that came in for an outer sill. I estimated £1000 to do the job, with paint etc, assuming there would be some rot in the inner sill and inner wings which would need repairing. When I too the cutting wheel to the car, it emerged that it had had two cover sills bodged on over an inner sill that was barely there, and the bottom 2 inches of the door pillar was missing. The shell was therefore out of true, and there was nearly an inch of filler in the bottom of the wings. By the time it was all back together properly and painted I had spent 2 weeks on the car! Thankfully I took photographs as I went along, so I didn't lose as much money as I could have done, but by the time the customer had threatened me with Trading Standards, had the car inspected by an Alfa secialist and generally caused me stress and lost working time, it was better to come to an agreement over what he would pay. The fact that he had said "it costs what it costs, I just want it done right" seemed to carry no weight with him.
Ironically, that guy ended up being one of my best customers!
In the end, no trader wants any involvement with Trading Standards, so stick to your guns. If he's overcharged you, he knows it, and it's not worth the time and aggravation for him to fight it. If you make him a sensible offer - 6 hours? - and state that if he accepts you will pay immediately, but if not you will go to Trading Standards, I would have thought any sane trader would have to bite the bullet and accept.
Neil
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here .