USED VEHICLE ISSUES. Help please.

[OHRoadwarrior]

I suggest you go back to him and complain he gave you a free engine swap, insist he put back in your defective engine and call you so you can tow home your car legally restored with broken down car. You are not a very sharp crayon since you cannot define when someone has gifted you and someone has defrauded you.

 

[quincy]

... Perhaps he should have been told in advance what was going on, but I doubt that this rises to any level of illegal practice ...

Actually, the law requires that a consumer authorize work before the work can be legally done.

You cannot force a consumer to pay for work they either did not want or cannot afford.

Read the links I provided.

 

[justalayman]

Actually, the law requires that a consumer authorize work before the work can be legally done.

You cannot force a consumer to pay for work they either did not want or cannot afford, unless they authorized the work.

Read the links I provided.

The owner of the dealer said the oil pump went out because I did not have the oil changed at 3k miles.. I found this extremely hard to believe (they also changed the oil before it was purchased). So I just went ahead and let him do the repairs. I put my car in the shop on a Monday 4-29-14 and I never once received a call giving me updates on the vehicle or what the cost would be. I called repeated asking for updates they gave me the run around time and time again. FINALLY I called and they said it was done and ready to be picked up 5-9-14 (11 days later..) I asked the mechanic what took so long and what exactly the issue was. He told me very hesitantly "we had to replace the engine." I could not believe my ears. They never once told me they planned on replacing the engine nor did they ever tell me they were actually doing this. I was told they were replacing the oil pump. That's it. I was very upset, so upset I took the car and told the owner I would come back tomorrow to discuss this issue.

well, it appears she authorized some work to be done. What it was exactly is unknown. If it was simply "fix it", then the OP would be on the hook for $50 unless there was some other price given.

Along with that, if the work order was simply to fix the car, then since they deemed it required the engine be replaced, then that was authorized too although the dollar amount was not so it could not be charged more than the $50.



I think the statement:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

might be appropriate. If she complains too much, she might get everything she is entitled to; nothing.

 

[quincy]

well, it appears she authorized some work to be done. What it was exactly is unknown. If it was simply "fix it", then the OP would be on the hook for $50 unless there was some other price given.

Along with that, if the work order was simply to fix the car, then since they deemed it required the engine be replaced, then that was authorized too although the dollar amount was not so it could not be charged more than the $50.



I think the statement:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

might be appropriate. If she complains too much, she might get everything she is entitled to; nothing.

What was described appears to violate the laws as written. An oil pump replacement was authorized. An engine was replaced without authorization.

I am not saying that having the engine replaced was necessarily a bad thing. It just appears to be an unauthorized thing. But I would have wanted a second (and third) opinion before going ahead with the replacement.

That said, kness has said that the shop owner is working with him now to remedy the problem, and that is good.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

It is possible the vehicle need to have the sub frame dropped to analyze the bottom end. Once disassembled, it would take hours to reassemble while tying up the garage bay. It appears the owner made a decision to give good customer service and minimize the loss of equipment and employee use to himself.

 

[quincy]

It is possible the vehicle need to have the sub frame dropped to analyze the bottom end. Once disassembled, it would take hours to reassemble while tying up the garage bay. It appears the owner made a decision to give good customer service and minimize the loss of equipment and employee use to himself.

Perhaps. But the owner SHOULD have made a decision to follow the law and notify the customer and provide an estimate, PRIOR to doing any work. The authorization is needed.

 

[Zigner]

Perhaps. But the owner SHOULD have made a decision to follow the law and notify the customer and provide an estimate, PRIOR to doing any work. The authorization is needed.

The authorization is needed in order to get paid for the work...not to do the work

 

[quincy]

The authorization is needed in order to get paid for the work...not to do the work

True. My sentence ended too soon, didn't it?

 

[justalayman]

True. My sentence ended too soon, didn't it?

and that is why I said, long ago, the garage would have to eat the $400.






I doubt the state is going to be too upset that a garage spent a bunch of their own money trying to satisfy the customer. If it comes down to it, OP would have to sue for their damages so let's compare:



a 2007 honda with 81,000 miles and a crap engine


a 2007 honda with 81,000 miles with a good engine with 94,000 miles on it

If similar in condition the difference in value is about $1500.


I'm guessing that they are fairly equal in value when considering the crap engine.