My girlfriend got a big MOT bill today, I think there's something fishy afoot. Here's the background:
She used to have her 1999 1.3 Fiesta serviced and MOT'd all at once by a small one-man garage. Now I service her car, so she just goes to him for the MOT. He doesn't do MOTs himself, he takes it to a garage up the road. So I can see that there's not a lot in it for him just doing her MOT - she pays him the fee and he passes it on to the place up the road, wasting some of his time in the process.
The bill is over £180, and here's the breakdown:
Brake shoes £31.09
Brake cylinder £27.40
P???e gas £12.00
Brake fluid £6.00
MOT £35.00
Labour 75.00
TOTAL: £186.49
Could anyone identify what this 'gas' might be? His handwriting is terrible! He's also included headlamp alignment in his labour rundown.
The MOT sheet shows failure on parking brake performance. Had shoe and cylinder renewal been necessary, then surely it would have failed on service brake performance also? Is my logic correct that if it passes on service brake but fails on parking brake, then the problem lies in the parking brake actuation mechanism and not in the brake itself?
He didn?t call her before doing the work on the brakes, and she didn?t say ?Do whatever it needs to pass the test?. Does this mean that legally we could remove the parts he fitted, return them to him, and refuse to pay for this part of the job? Incidentally, the bill hasn?t been paid yet but the car has been collected and and MOT certificate issued.
Secondly, the MOT failure sheet has been doctored. There is tip-ex in the pass column next to 'headlamp aim' and a tick has been made in the fail column. This tick, and the comment 'HEADLIGHT AIM NTRS' are in a slightly different hand to the other ticks and comments on the sheet. Can anyone enlighten me as to what NTRS means? My understanding of headlamp adjustment is that it is done on stiff-threads, and it would take some sort of impact or disturbing of the headlamp mount to affect the beam alignment? The car hasn?t suffered anything like this in the last year, so I?ve no reason to suspect the headlamps would be out of alignment.
I already plan to call the garage who did the MOT and ask what their copy of the failure sheet says next to 'headlamp aim'. I'm assuming these are carbon copies from a pad, with the customer copy being the top one?
I think he's yanking her crankshaft? What do you people reckon? All advice gratefully received...
|
Hi Graham,
Here's my hypothesis, for what it is worth. The brake faults/parts/work can possibly be explained as follows;
The car gave low effort on the handbrake, so the drums were removed, possibly with the intention of just quickly freeing off the mechanism. Upon removing the drums, it was noticed that;
i) the linkage was seized up, and needed freeing off, possibly using 'plug-gas'
ii) the linings were worn, and needed replacing - ideal to do them while the drums are already off
iii) the brake cylinder was beginning to weep brake fluid, and if left, would only spoil the new linings
I don't know about the headlamp adjustment - was it particularly expensive? NTRS? - not to required specification ?
It is possible that everything is OK, and the garage was simply acting to minimise disruption - are they aware of your spanner twirling skills?
On the other hand, I may be wrong, and they may be trying it on! What sort of garage is it? Have they been established long?
number_cruncher
|
Apart from what NC said. Why take it to a one man band.to have MOT. ie pay him to take elswhere..Dont see the logic..bearing in mind. I have no idea of whether you are capable of sorting any problems out. No offence meant.But think reality may be one man band.sorted any problems out where you cant/didnt look. where MOT is concerned.better safe than sorry??
--
Steve
|
|
If I had my way it would have gone elsewhere, but SWMBO was adamant he should do it. She's not so sure after the bill!
|
|
|
|
All possible of course.
But then, she asked for an MOT, not a servicing of the rear brakes. And she didn't authorise the work.
Still can't read his writing, but it's definitely not plug gas. And according to the bill it was 'added'.
Do the wheels come off during the MOT test?
I tightened the hand brake cable up last night before she sent it in.
When I have daylight I'll open up the drums and see if anything's been changed.
|
No the wheels dont come off..As work wasnt authorised.ie any work that needs doing. you should be contacted and asked if its ok to go ahead..they are not within rights to do work without your consent..Only thing is they can. remove vehicle from road. if deemed to be unroadworthy.though it is rare this happens
--
Steve
|
|
I wouldn't have said a bill of £186, including the cost of the MOT was to bad.
|
|
|
Why take a car for an MOT to a garage that doesn't do MOT's?
By taking the car to a garage that you know very well isn't a test centre you have, although maybe not directly, asserted them to put the car through its MOT and ensure it passes, carrying out any remedial work as required. If you had said send the car for its MOT up the road and do nothing else the garage would probably have told you to take it yourself.
|
I think the man has already answered that. SWMBO insisted on it. No good arguing with them, who knows what goes on in their heads.
In an ideal word it should have gone to a place that ONLY does MOT's and next time it probably will.
This is my course of action because I've had too many, 'well there's only a minor problem with the left hand throg nipple drive, £100 will sort it and no re-test fee' brigade.
The bill is sufficiently small that its probably easier to swallow and move on.
|
I used to work at a small garage in Birmingham, amongst the usual mechanicing, I was doing all the MOTs. Before I started the boss used to look at the day's work and if it was low would tell me to fail a few cars.
Nuff said
|
|
|
|
>>By taking the car to a garage that you know very well isn't a test centre you have, although maybe not directly, asserted them to put the car through its MOT and ensure it passes
No such thing as maybe..If car taken to any garage/no express permission given to repair. they are not entitled to make the repair..without your permission.I think my above statement is correct..Please anyone correct if wrong??
--
Steve
|
I think number cruncher is probably the closest here. The bill doesn't break down too badly except that the parts are a little pricey (brake cylinder).
Roughly an hour each side to strip and replace rear brake linings seems to be common in the trade so the labour charge looks to be ok. - although i am sure they can do both sides in an hour or less.
I too have no idea what the p??? gas is !
As the advice above - bill probably low enough to suck it up and move on.at least you know the rear brakes are now sorted and can be forgotton about for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, there was a typo in my post - I meant plus-gas, which is a powerful penetrant, very useful for freeing seized parts. Although £12 sounds like enough money to buy quite a volume of the stuff!
Why not just go to the garage, with the bill, and chat it through in a positive way with the garage owner? He may have the old parts to hand, and may be able to explain everything.
As far as the extra work goes, what exactly was said when the car was dropped off. Did your girlfriend, for example say 'I would like my car to be submitted for an MOT inspection', or 'My MOT runs out next week, and the current certificate is in the car'. The former leaves no doubt, and does not authorise any work. The latter implies that she expects a new MOT to be there when she comes back. The implication is not authorisation itself, but it does leave doubt.
Of course, it is best practice for anyone taking work into a garage to agree with the customer the circumstances in which extra work would or would not be done, but that doesn't always happen.
number_cruncher
|
|
Its a Fiesta and so its going to take about an hour to do that brake job (both sides). Parts retail cost is about half what he's charged. £12 will buy you a gallon of PlusGas. He's earned about £130 for an hours work (less overheads, of course).
|
|
|
"P???e gas £12.00"
Could your "P" be an "F" and therefore might refer to Forte Gas (Treatment)?
www.forteuk.co.uk/Gas_treatment.htm
|
|
|
Yeah, sounds most likely like a bit of a misunderstanding here. If garage 1 normally did the servicing until you took on the job, was he actally told that beforehand? I agree he should have sought permission to do the work but perhaps he thought he'd always done it before with no problems/questions so why change now? If you told him to JUST sort the MOT and in the event of any significant work being required he should contact you first as you'd like the option of OK'ing or tackling it yourself, he acted wrongly - perhaps due to familiarity.
Obviously I can't explain the dodgy bit on the paperwork except to say that we all make mistakes. If the guy had always been trustworthy in the past why would he suddenly turn dodgy?
Finally, if he was just acting as an intermediary what was in it for him? If you didn't offer to pay him to organise the MOT perhaps he thought his 'cut' was the price/value of any work which was required. Why else would you give him the car to MOT rather than taking it to the test centre direct?
|
|
|
This seems to me to be a classic case of an uncertain horse for the wrong course.
Small one-man shops that don't do MOTs are fine for people who have no DIY skills, or no time, as long as the man has a good reputation. I have known concerns like that that are absolutely wonderful. They do all the sort of pre-MOT stuff that you would do yourself if that way inclined, and then take on the bother of getting it through the MOT. A good honest man like that is worth his weight.
On the other hand, if you are yourself of that type, and simply want an MOT, then an MOT-only place is best. They have nothing to gain by failing or recommending needless work, and have no opportunities for overpricing repairs.
A general purpose garage cum MOT place is fine too, but then you have to be very clear what the deal is: pass at any price; pass at "reasonable" price; don't do anything without contacting me; or I will take it away and do it myself whatever it fails on.
You chose the worst of all options, and left the garage with little opportunity for making even an honest penny.
In the circumstances the price seems remarkably low - unless of course inspection shows it was a complete rip-off. That would be very foolish, because a sole trader is critically dependent on accumulated good-will, which he has just thrown away.
|
|
|
I was interested to see this thread. I suggest you contact the vehicle inspectorate (VOSA)
A friend of mine works for VOSA and has spent the last two weeks doing incognito visits to test stations. They prepare a car and then take it to various mot stations and have it mot'ed.
In the first few days she closed over 30% of the test stations for either not testing correctly or attempting to charge for unneccessary work. After that everywhere tested correctly - she was surprised, until she took the car back to hq and found that someone had written VOSA underneath it.
|
"... found that someone had written VOSA underneath it"
Could you pass on exactly where and how one should write VOSA in order to get this standard of service?
|
Yes, tyro, that's very good indeed !!!
Come on mark99, please tell us more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are better putting right the small faults like bulbs and wipers yourself then put it in for the MOT. If it fails then you can negotiate with the garage to have it brought up to scratch. This way if you don't like the price you can go elsewhere . £180 dosen't seen bad...my last one was over £600.
|
Saying "£180 doesn't seem bad" is meaningless. It's about two things: the work which was needed, and the price charged for the work. It's certainly not about what was wrong with a different car which cost £600 to fix.
"An engine rebuild on a V12 Jag can cost thousands. So really £180 for some brakes is chicken feed."
;-)
|
GrahamF1
If I've read this correctly did they only change one rear brake cylinder?
If they did then this is a waste of time. They should have changed both of them because, even if only one was leaking at the time, you can guarantee that, since they are the same age, the other one won't be far behind before that starts leaking, too. Then, you've got another bill, also, if the other cylinder leaks onto the shoes then you'll need to pay for yet another set of barely worn shoes.
When I take my car for an MOT I always use the same garage, and I'm always standing next to the car and talking to the tester while it's being tested. I do realise that this may well not be what's written in the VOSA Manual, but it's the way I like things to be, and it avoids and nasty surprises in terms of an unexpected bill for a lot of work.
|
Thanks for everyone's help!
I'll be taking the drums off for a look at the weekend. Good point about only replacing one cylinder. What gets me is that even if he changed these parts, it didn't fail the MOT on them - it failed on a slack handbrake cable (which I'd tightened, but evidently not enough to their satisfaction).
It's definitely Forte Gas that he used. Is this a decent product, or 'snake oil'? In either case, we didn't ask for it so we won't pay for it. I bet he tries to spin a yarn along the lines of it failing the emissions test without it.
I don't like the tip-ex on the checklist. If they'd nothing to hide then surely they'd just cross it out?
|
GrahamF1
You probably don't need to take the drums off to see what's been done, or not done, as the case may be.
If you look under the car at the backplate you will soon see whether a new rear cylinder has been fitted. The part that protrudes through the backplate where the brake hoses couple up to will be bright and shiny!
Also, if the Fiesta is the same as my similarly aged Mondeo, there is a rubber elongated plug in the backplate which, when removed, should just about allow you to see whether the brake shoes are new, i.e. clean. Probably will need to shine a torch at it.
Good Luck!
|
|
|
I kind of think you're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one.
Firstly, tip-ex is hardly the leading edge of document forgery, is it. I would guess that it was filled in incorrectly and changed. If I had filled something in wrongly, by the time I'd actually managed to locate the tip-ex I would certainly have ended up with a different pen, a different wqriting surface, and perhaps even have asked someone else to change it.
By the way, plus gas is a penetrating oil, I think. In which case I would have said that use of it was highly justified where brakes are concerned, although charging for it might be a bit strong.
I'd take the advice from earlier, go down, speak to the guy in a reasonable and open manner and see what you think.
If he's done honest work, but you feel that you hadn't approved it, well pay him for the honest work but explain that you feel it wasn't authorised and in future you want it to be - remembering that £180 doesn't seem all that bad really.
At the other extreme if he's charging for work he hasn't done, or he has cynically done work that wasn't neccessary then you have a call to make.
Ask for the return of all the replaced bits and have a look at them. Then decide if you want to not pay something, or simply put it down to experience and then insist on telling everybody about it.
By the way, it would be acceptable legally to make the guy an offer.
e.g. You have asked for £180 which you spent without my authorisation. Had you asked for that authorisation I would have said yes to these bits and no to these bits. I attach a cheque for the bits I would have authorised. With respect to the other bits I am happy to return the car to your garage for you to replace the removed parts back again. Although this will be at your expense and I shall want to be assured that all has been returned to how it was safely blah blah - you get the idea.
Personally I'd pay and walk having learned.
|
|
Based upon having looked at the bill again and the suggestions on here, it's Forte Gas rather than Plus Gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I'd normally, like you, assume that a third party is out to rip off the consumer.
However, in this case, my sympathy lies with the garage.
Woman - with whom I've previously had a good & close working relationship - turns up at my garage with 5 year old car. She used to bring it to me for servicing, but unaccountably, recently she has stopped doing so. Could you get this MOT'd for me please, she says.
Knowing that I haven't seen the car since the last MOT, I wouldn't wnt to take it straight to the test centre without having some idea of what state the car was in. (A waste of your test fee if the car was a total shed; somewhat embarassing for me to turn up with a shed to a test centre.)
I'm not running a charity. So why has she brought the car to me? To make sure that it passes. So I spend an hour on the brakes which are substandard. The Fiesta is not an old wreck, it's worth a few thousands, so #50 of parts & #40 of labour well she's scarcely going to complain is she. Otherwise I reckon it should pass.
Then I take the car down the test centre, and it takes an hour from me leaving the garage, having the test, doing paperwork with the test centre & getting back.
So there's 2 hours labour - one for faffing about with the car & one for doing the brakes. #32.50 an hour is pretty much a bargain rate - not a lot of profit in that.
So my view is: Pay it. & next time, don't bully the poor old chappie into doing something for free. & perhaps make sure exactly what you wanted doing.
|
|
|
What do you people reckon? All advice gratefully received ..
>>
has she already paid? if so, she has probably accepted that the work was authorised and the bill was justified.
the current mot fee is over £40, and on that basis he has undercharged and does not seem to be out to rip off customers.
exactly what instructions did the girlfriend give? did she say - get my car an mot? or just submit my car for the test?
if it was me who was the garage owner, and i was asked just to take the car up the road for a test only (i.e. no repairs to be done) - i would say, fine but the i will charge you £x for "handling" your car. (because you are expecting me to act as your servant to take the car up the road for no benefit to me ).
as others have suggested, go along and talk nicely to the owner and try and agree a compromise.
|
Outcome: I'm going to go along and discuss it with him nicely, probably on Tuesday. The bill hasn't been paid yet.
As a starting point, there's no way we'll pay for petrol additive that we didn't ask for. I shall ask about the brakes, because if it needed new shoes / cylinder then I would have done it. It only failed on the handbrake, and if the wheels don't come off during the MOT then shoes / cylinder couldn't have caused this as it didn't fail on the service brake test.
|
Graham,
Remember that part of the handbrake mechanism lies within the drum.
While a mal-adjusted cable may result in poor handbrake effort, it isn't the only possible cause, therefore, the removal of the drums wasn't a foolish thing to do - it would allow access to the last links in the handbrake actuation mechanism. Once the drums were off, other faults which didn't show up during the MOT brake test may have become clear. In short, your logic may not be bullet-proof.
For example, with a wafer thin coating of friction material remaining on the shoes, the service brake would still pass the MOT, but it would,of course,be correct practice to replace the shoes. Likewise a weeping cylinder would have negligible effect on brake efficiency until the shoes become contaminated, or cylinder could no longer hold pressure, again, it should be replaced.
I think the point made above about replacing both cylinders was made, perhaps, too strongly. There is no 'guarantee' that one side will follow the other in failure, although this sometimes does happen. I can imagine a number of situations where one side will fail much sooner than the other. Obviously, with 2 cylinders on, the bill would have gone up further. Without having seen the condition of the car, it is difficult to say more.
Now that it is clear that Forte Gas was used, £12 seems OK, and Forte products tend to be OK, IMO. It was possibly used to reduce the risk of an MOT failure for emissions.
I also agree with the analysis given above by Mapmaker which suggests that the labour rate may not be extortionate.
I hope that you manage to reach a reasonable conclusion. Please come back to the forum and let us know how you get on.
number_cruncher
|
I'm almost certain I mentioned recently that my best mate sent one of his comparatively new vans for its MOT at a local quick fit type of centre - it revealed that about £1,000 worth of work was necessary to pass the test.
A bit bemused and somewhat taken aback, he decided to take it for a second test at another outlet.
Result - a full pass with the advice that two of the tyres would need replacing in the not too distant future. He decided to buy new tyres and have them fitted to save off-road time in the future.
Unfortunately he wouldn't get the Vehicle Inspectorate involved but, almost certainly, the reason the first outlet found "work" was that it was a business rather than private vehicle.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
VOSA
Apparently it was written in the dirt in each wheel arch and on the bottom of the car - presumably in a possition where it was obvious if the garage even looked at the car. I never asked if it was just scratched in the dirt or done with chalk or something. Fairly common for a garage to do that if they realise, so I'm told. Presumably while the VOSA bod is in the office giving them a good talking to, someone slipped out and marked it.
But yes it will get you a proper MOT done.
|
Update - just had the drums off.
Shoes looks reasonably new but neither wheel cylinder does. I'll ask him on Tuesday which one he replaced. I also got prices for the parts from a little place that gives me trade prices: the shoes were correct at £30 for a set of four, but the cylinder is £5 - not £27!
Watch this space on Tuesday...
|
Hmmm. that's very interesting!
So you don't think that either of the cylinders have been changed? If that's the case then I expect that just a set of seals have been fitted. In a worn cylinder they won't last 5 minutes!
Are we talking about genuine Ford parts here? If we are then I think that £27 + VAT for a wheel cylinder would be about right. A cylinder for £5??!!! Even at trade prices, I think someone has made a mistake! Even if it's a pattern part I would expect it to cost something like £15 + VAT.
Might be an idea to get parts prices from somewhere like Halfords and, also, from Ford Main Dealer.
I hope you can reach a satisfactory outcome over this matter.
Good Luck
|
As a closure to this matter, I've just been on the phone to him and sorted it all out.
We're going to pay the man, take the lesson, and go elsewhere for a straightforward MOT next time. Seems all he was really guilty of was not asking SWMBO before doing the work on the brakes. Apparently both cylinders were leaking and he fitted two new ones.
It's all my fault really. When I serviced it a month ago, I had a paddy with the cooling system which took up most of the afternoon. By the time I came to the brakes I was losing the light, and I really couldn't be bothered to take the drums off - so I just checked the front brakes over. If I'd done it properly and changed the cylinders & shoes on the rear brakes, none of this would have happened.
|
Graham,
Well done for sorting it out and for being honest about it. Thanks also for updating us, its always good to hear what happens.
Now you can wait until the next poor soul has a similar experience, and trust me there'll be one along in a minute, there always is, and share your experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a wheel cylinder replaced two years ago for £6 on the receipt, do you think this was just seals too? I would have thought it would be too much trouble for them to take the cylinder apart, fit new seals, and put back together again, rather than replacing the whole thing.
|
I can buy new (quality aftermarket) Fiesta wheelcylinders at about £8+VAT each and a set of shoes for about £12+VAT.
If anyone ever wants me to change wheel cylinders and shoes on a Fiesta and then take it for an MoT I gladly do it for £150 (test fee included)! Nice work if I could get it. No one in the trade is ever going to pay the full test fee - I've never ever paid the full fee.
|
I know a place that gives me trade prices - the cylinders were £5 and the shoes £14 or £31 depending on the type (we couldn't quite establish which ones it needed).
I'm just going to live and learn on this one. It won't go back to him though.
|
By chance, when I took my daughter's car in for an MOT a couple of weeks ago I went to the Essex County Council workshops in Chelmsford for it.
They don't do repairs so have nothing to gain from failing on false pretences.
As an added bonus, as SHMBO works for ECC, they do a staff discounted rate of £30.
|
|
|
|
RE: "My understanding of headlamp adjustment is that it is done on stiff-threads, and it would take some sort of impact or disturbing of the headlamp mount to affect the beam alignment?"
Your headlamps might need re-adjustment if your front suspension drops because of wear.
PS - I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it but garages that take cars elsewhere for MOTs usually add an extra £5 or £10 on to the fee to cover their time.
|
|
|
I'd have to agree with those who think the bill is reasonable-ish. I don't imagine many garages will bother to chase down the absolute cheapest parts cost - unless its for their own vehicle! What sometimes galls me is when they charge a fee for 'sundries' (like brake fluid) which is often enough to buy a year's supply of the stuff.
As regards headlight aim, I've had a car pass its MoT only to be repeatedly 'flashed' by oncoming traffic. A quick check looking at the beam pattern on a garage door showed quite clearly that the offside beam was aimed high.
You might be forgiven for thinking that the guy is taking 'revenge' on you for daring to do the servicing yourself. I've come across this before, and I have to say I do understand why!
The fairest MoT tester I've used runs a testing centre which does just that - testing. No repairs, hence no vested interest in failing a car just to bring in work.
|
|
|
