 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2007How liable are auto mechanics for wrong inspections?
I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no fluid loss in brake hydraulic system." I have it in writing. Now another mechanic found (and showed me) evidnece of a brake fluid leak, and reported the brakes are at 15%. Fixing these is almost $300, and it's the BRAKE system... not just an air conditioner. What if I wouldn't have gone to this other mechanic? What can and should I demand from that shop... sue them for millions? get the fix for free? nothing? There are also more issues (they said the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fixing these is almost $300, and it's the BRAKE system... not just an > air conditioner. LOL - where do you live? "Not just an air conditioner". How's the weather up there? > What if I wouldn't have gone to this other mechanic? > > What can and should I demand from that shop... sue them for millions? If you like filing frivolous lawsuits. > get the fix for free? LMAO > nothing? There are also more issues (they said > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. IANAL, but I presume they didn't guarantee the car for you - they merely checked it out and didn't find these problems you're finding now. To me, it sounds like you didn't do due diligence to figure out if you were getting a good deal on a car and now you want to hold someone else responsible. Let me ask you this - WHO bought the car? Was it you or was it the auto shop you asked to check it out? Ok, let me ask you this - what didn't I do properly to figure out if I was getting a good deal on the car? > Ok, let me ask you this - what didn't I do properly to figure out if I > was getting a good deal on the car? Look at the car with the first mechanic and the second one. Why did you get a second opinion? Did you actually buy the car? If so, your rights in this matter depend a lot on the laws in the state where you live. Check your state's web site for a consumer affairs office. > Ok, let me ask you this - what didn't I do properly to figure out if I > was getting a good deal on the car? taking it to the "other" mechanic in the first place. How much did you pay for this car that you're so upset over a $300 brake job? And the less you pay for a used car, the more you should anticipate problems like this. > To me, it sounds like you didn't do due diligence to figure out if you > were getting a good deal on a car and now you want to hold someone else > responsible. Just how many mechanics do you figure he should take the car to before he buys it? >>To me, it sounds like you didn't do due diligence to figure out if you >>were getting a good deal on a car and now you want to hold someone else >>responsible. > > Just how many mechanics do you figure he should take the car to before > he buys it? Since he seems to expect it should come with the same type of warranty that people who buy new cars get, I would say at least 5. >I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. And how do you know the second mechanic isn't pulling your puddin and trying to sell you a brake job? Binba, I'm not sure what this brake rating system is or why there is such a discrepancy between the 2 mechanics. The big deal is that you have a leak that the first guy may have missed. Your legal recourse is to ask the first mechanic for your money back. When he says no you may sue but you don't have a strong case. When folks ask you to recommend a good mechanic don't recommend the first guy if you think he's bad. Good luck, Dave M. > Binba, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Good luck, > Dave M. If you can prove that the first mechanic deliberately gave you faulty information to entice you to buy the car, then you have a case for fraud. In article <1175752051.868487.232460@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. How much did the first shop charge you for the inspection? Hey, thanks for all the useful replies, unlike Fred's. Btw, this is just part of the story - the second mechanic found problems in $1500. What I'm gonna do first is take it to a third guy - he doesn't specialize in Mazdas but at least I have a recommendation for him (apparently at least as important). I just moved into a new city, so one has to get to know the area's mechanics too... For now, I decided I'm not even gonna bother with the misjudging shop - the test cost $80 and they were generally pricey with fixes ($75 for wheel alignment opossed to $50 everywhere else); if they did a sloppy job, why would I want my brakes fixed with them? Even for a $80 discount. > Hey, thanks for all the useful replies, unlike Fred's. > Btw, this is just part of the story - the second mechanic found [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > job, why would I want my brakes fixed with them? Even for a $80 > discount. Hey, Binba. First, here's hopes you enjoy your newly-bought car. And it is apparent you expect to spend a few $ on a used car. Since I am familiar with inspections only in our own state, my perception is that when you take a car, before purchasing, to a mechanic, you are paying him to inspect and give you HIS OPINION. It is definitely not for any warranty. So being, one's opinion can well differ among mechanics. Otherwise, if they all saw things in exactly the same way, then all would have wanted the same wife--and what a fiasco that'd be. You have, in here somewhere, mentioned what I'd agree should be the proper thing to do: remember that 1st mechanic may be too liberal. The 2nd one may be "over-zealous". And if whomever replaces your brakes seems to do a good job and does so w/out robbing you, then remember just that when it comes time for repairs again. I think there are many of us who would agree that these inspections are just opinions(which we've all heard, are like a**holes:everybody has one). And, if you look at it in the same light, I'm sure you agree with us that one's opinion is merely that. It may be erroneous, but it still is his "baby". Example: So many mechanics & car enthusiasts have for years run down Quaker State oil. And I know several mechanics who use nothing but QS in their personal cars and have done so for decades. Obviously their opinions differ from my own: but having watched them get good service w/oil I don't personally prefer, I sometimes question whose is more nearly valid . Nonetheless, when I hear these pos. opinions re:QS oil, altho' they may be invalid as I see them, I have to respect that they ARE these guys' opinions, however unprofitable/profitable they may be. Luck to you, and Happy Easter!!! s ... Since I am > familiar with inspections only in our own state, my perception is that > when you take a car, before purchasing, to a mechanic, you are paying him > to inspect and give you HIS OPINION. It is definitely not for any > warranty. So being, one's opinion can well differ among mechanics. .... Your perception of may well differ from the mechanic's legal obligations. If a consumer pays a mechanic to inspect a car and the mechanic misses a significant problem, esp one that other mechanics would/should have uncovered in the inspection, that mechanic may be liable for damages to the consumer (eg, cost of repair, dimunition in value). >I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. Depends on the state, but most mechanics have an obligation to consumers to perform their work as a reasonably prudent mechanic would under the same circumstances. So if, for example, you had paid a mechanic to check out a low-mileage car and he heard a knock that was a bad rod, said nothing, and shortly after you bought the car the engine failed, and you had another mechanic testify that the first mechanic should have diagnosed the problem and informed you of it, you'd prolly have a pretty good claim to recover all or part of the cost to replace the engine. A number of states have consumer protection laws that provide even greater protections and damages. In your case, it sounds like the mechanic did a poor job but it's not so clear cut. As a practical matter, you might bring the written findings of other mechanics to the first mechanic and ask for an explanation, and if you don't get a good one, ask them to reimburse you for the repairs and/or the fee you paid. You might get a hostile response but ya never know. OTOH, sometimes it's not worth the hassle and you just move on. Good luck. I agree with Fred. You took it to a shop for an opinion. Is is a shop that you always go to? Go back to the original shop and ask them to look at it again. See if they will do something for you. If it is a quality shop, they should stand behind there work. If you go in there and start acting like an idiot and telling them you are going to sue them, you will get nowhere. One of the shops is obviously lying to you... If the first shop did a legal safety inspection, the kind needed to get plates and insurance, they are 'Very' liable for the report they made. They can have their license pulled for a fake report. Seeing as they 'didn't' find all these troubles when it is a perfect chance to pad the bill up makes me more inclined to believe the first shop... I think the second shop is the scam artist shop. Things like the tires wear. A bad alignment and regular tire rotation makes 'all' the tire wear bad. You need an alignment first, tires when they wear out... The squirt of brake fluid on the cylinder is an old trick. (note the reservoir will be down a little in both because of normal wear) If it is indeed leaking, the reservoir will go down in fluid and it will make a stain on the back side of the rim and tire. Do you see any dirty wet oil marks there? I would closely monitor that and watch for stains. Again 'easy money' for the inspection shop, so????? An exhaust leak is a safety violation. If you had one, the safety inspection 'would' have found that. That is the easiest money they can scam for if a scam shop. Clean the oil pan??? Why? I have never seen an oily pan rust out, but have seen a pile including my current engine's oil pan rust out... If it doesn't drip on the ground.... Again an oil leak will fail a safety inspection up here in Canada. My $0.02, Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. > One of the shops is obviously lying to you... Or it's possible that they just didn't do a good enough job at inspecting it. Unless the first shop had some connection to the seller (quite possible even if it's not obvious), then they would have no reason to lie about it. > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Fixing these is almost $300, and it's the BRAKE system... not just an > air conditioner. How do you know it isn't the 2nd mechanic that is in error and trying to RIP YOU OFF for un-needed repairs, eh moron? >What if I wouldn't have gone to this other mechanic? What if the Queen of England was really a man ? > What can and should I demand from that shop... sue them for millions? Were you damaged in the millions, fool? > get the fix for free? nothing? There are also more issues (they said > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), And you're too pig-ignorant to be able to look at tires yourself, eh imbecile? >but this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. You're a moron, you deserve to be perpetually victimized in life. > > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > How do you know it isn't the 2nd mechanic that is in error > and trying to RIP YOU OFF for un-needed repairs, eh moron? He doesn't. But I think the original post raised some valid points, and it's reasonable to assume that not all people are familiar enough with cars to evaluate condition themselves. Thus, the reasonable and prudent thing to do is to pay for a PPI to identify any serious issues with a vehicle, which the OP did. Now the OP is apparently being told that there are issues that one would assume have been checked in the PPI... what the OP needs now is guidance as to how to proceed from here (i.e. properly identify whether or not he really has these issues that would appear to need immediate correction) not insults. Brakes: what is the current thickness of the brake pads or shoes? As another poster suggested, do you see any evidence of leaking on the wheels? Any unusual brake performance? Tires: how deep is the tread? Describe any unusual wear that you may see, and any cracking - how deep, how wide, where? nate >>> I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a >>> professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and it's reasonable to assume that not all people are familiar enough > with cars to evaluate condition themselves. Tires? Is he blind? > Thus, the reasonable and > prudent thing to do is to pay for a PPI to identify any serious issues > with a vehicle, which the OP did. Yep, and now, out of blind ignorance, he is not only doubting their expert opinion, but accusing them of willful malfeasance. > Now the OP is apparently being told > that there are issues that one would assume have been checked in the > PPI... Told by whom? Is this fool going to sue the Pope because the Jews have told him that jesus wasn't the christ? > what the OP needs now is guidance as to how to proceed from > here (i.e. properly identify whether or not he really has these issues > that would appear to need immediate correction) not insults. Stupid people don't need coddling, they need a swift kick in the a.s ... > Brakes: what is the current thickness of the brake pads or shoes? As > another poster suggested, do you see any evidence of leaking on the > wheels? Any unusual brake performance? > > Tires: how deep is the tread? Describe any unusual wear that you may > see, and any cracking - how deep, how wide, where? He's obviously too stupid to even look at tires, or comprehend what he's looking at. And why wouldn't you assume, that if there is a conflict of opinion between 2 shops, that the second shop, the one that stands to make a FINANCIAL gain on any repairs, is the one overstating the deterioration ? To what advantage would the first shop gain financially from deliberately understating the needed repairs? >>How do you know it isn't the 2nd mechanic that is in error >>and trying to RIP YOU OFF for un-needed repairs, eh moron? > > He doesn't. But I think the original post raised some valid points, > and it's reasonable to assume that not all people are familiar enough > with cars to evaluate condition themselves. Then frankly, they shouldn't be driving cars. I've ALWAYS said that cars shouldn't be operated like they were toasters- at least a BASIC knowledge is absolutely essential- and checking something as important as the brake fluid and visually inspecting something as important as tires DEFINITELY fall in that category. I'm not saying that every driver should be able to rebuild an engine, but every driver SHOULD be able to determine WITHOUT HELP whether his or her car is basically sound and safe to drive or not. >>get the fix for free? nothing? There are also more issues (they said >>the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), > > And you're too pig-ignorant to be able to look at tires yourself, eh > imbecile? I glossed over that in the initial post. I have a problem with one of the tires on my car - uneven wear due to insufficient repairs by a shop who I will soon learn if their "lifetime guarantee" means anything. Funny thing is, that even though I can see the tire is not in good shape, a "mechanic" at a local oil change shop seemed horrified by the wear on it. He wasn't trying to sell me new tires either - it seems he was just a "chicken little" (the sky is falling). Anyway - even if the shop who repaired the suspension the first time doesn't come through, I'm not going to sue them for "millions". I might sue them for the cost of repairs, but at most, that will me limited to low 4 digits. Jeebus, it's only a friggin' car. Even without it being fixed, my damages are limited to having to replace a tire about 3 times as often as I should have to. Dude, you're an idiot. > Dude, you're an idiot. Do you realize that you are responding to yourself with this? > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. Take it some where and have it inspected ONLY. Make it clear that they will not be doing repairs. As I understand it, on 4 Apr 2007 22:47:31 -0700, "Binba" <drorworld@yahoo.com> wrote: >I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a >professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but >this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. Are you certain it was the first shop that tried to somehow con you? I don't see telling someone who needs work that they don't, thereby ensuring the potential customer doesn't spend their money with them. I *can* see the second place claiming you needed work in an effort to get you to spend more money with them. Based on what you've presented here, I would suspect the second guy over the first.  SignatureKent Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter. >I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a >professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no >fluid loss in brake hydraulic system." I have it in writing. I've never heard of rating brakes at a percentage. But I'd want mine working *100%*. >Now another mechanic found (and showed me) evidnece of a brake fluid >leak, and reported the brakes are at 15%. >Fixing these is almost $300, and it's the BRAKE system... not just an >air conditioner. In spite of comments of some other posters here, I've gone months with a broken car air conditioner. In Texas. In the summer. In 100+F weather. On the other hand, I went about 10 minutes without functioning brakes when a dealer forgot to put back in brake fluid after working on them. There was no accident; when I discovered I was still headed through a red light at an intersection the parking brake stopped the car. Then I drove back to the dealer REAL SLOW. >What if I wouldn't have gone to this other mechanic? If the brakes had failed you and you got into a crippling or fatal accident, THEN you would have an opportunity to sue for millions. I won't guarantee you'd win, though. >What can and should I demand from that shop... sue them for millions? What are your damages? You bought a car with bad brakes when you could have gotten a better one (at possibly a higher price). It seems to me your damages are *at most* the cost of fixing the brakes and the hydraulic system to be as good as he claimed they were, plus maybe a little for loss of use of the car while it's being repaired, or a loaner car. I hope that $300 repair gets your brakes to better than 40%. >get the fix for free? nothing? There are also more issues (they said >the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but >this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. Tire issues are very much a safety issue. Which mechanic is right? I'm sure there are a lot of scammers out there who like to lie and tell you you don't need to give them any money to fix something - just like all the crooked bankers who lend you money, then skip town without leaving a forwarding address. NOT! The usual scam is to claim you need repairs you don't really need. Ok, first of all: Geesh, I wasn't going to sue anyone for millions or probably sue at all. I presented the whole range of things that can CAN do. So for all the flamers, get off it. My own conclusion, after this 3-day intensive auto "seminar": I can at the most ask for the cost of the brakes change ($300), and more realistically to get the inspection's money back ($80). I'd skip the first option, since if they did a sloppy inspection I don't want them fixing my brakes anyway, and the second might not be even worth my time. Brakes: More interesingly, as some of the more productive posters noted, the brake fluid thing might really been a scam; Hal pointed in another post: "Some shops will pull the boot back from around the piston and say 'See! It's leaking!'" That's EXACTLY what they did. The shoes are at about 2mm. Conclusion: I'm not going to touch the cylinders, and will change shoes in 2000 miles. Tires: Guess what, among everything else I inspected when considering the car - gear shifting time, engine noise, testing the brakes, corrision in hinges and chaisis etc. etc. - yeah, I DID look at the tires. Two 2"-long cracks in one of them. Which is why I pointed it out to the inspecting mechanic. He said it's no biggie. If 3 certified mechanics have 4 opinions about "how bad is this tire", what do you want from me. Eventually: mechanic #3 agreed they're unsafe (excessive wear not on the treads, but on the interior edge), and I got new ones. Seems like the first shop was sloppy, and the second overzealous. Third one seemed somewhat ok, I'll probably go there for my next service. Though there's still a misfire OBD code to be figured out... but that's a different story for another post. Drew > Ok, first of all: > Geesh, I wasn't going to sue anyone for millions or probably sue at [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fixing my brakes anyway, and the second might not be even worth my > time. You ignoramus, you really don't have a clue, do you? > Brakes: More interesingly, as some of the more productive posters > noted, the brake fluid thing might really been a scam; Hal pointed in > another post: "Some shops will pull the boot back from around the > piston and say 'See! It's leaking!'" That's EXACTLY what they did. So, you admit that the SECOND shop is a dishonest rip-off, yet in your pea sized brain you want to attack and accuse the FIRST shop? > The shoes are at about 2mm. > Conclusion: I'm not going to touch the cylinders, and will change > shoes in 2000 miles. And why do you think that with 2000 miles left on the functioning shoes that the FIRST repair shop should have to compensate you for a complete new brake replacement ? > Tires: Guess what, among everything else I inspected when considering > the car - gear shifting time, engine noise, testing the brakes, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mechanics have 4 opinions about "how bad is this tire", what do you > want from me. So of course attack one of those at random, eh? > Eventually: mechanic #3 agreed they're unsafe Eventually? After what? An idiot consumer contradicting him? > (excessive wear not on > the treads, but on the interior edge), and I got new ones. So you knew the tires has issues before you bought the car, and in YOU ignorant opinion it was "dangerous", despite differing expert opinions from auto mechanics, so you want to attack and sue the experts whom disagreed with you, eh numbnuts? > Seems like the first shop was sloppy, Seems like you're a blithering idiot, as irrefutably proven by your own absurd postings. > and the second overzealous. So by all means attack the FIRST shop based on the known dishonesty of the SECOND shop, eh jackass? > Third one seemed somewhat ok, I'll probably go there for my next > service. Why? Because they agreed with your preconceived inexpert opinion? That should be comforting to you. Hey, did you check the windshield wipers? There are tiny cracks in the rubber and that is a "safety hazard" ... OH MY! > Though there's still a misfire OBD code to be figured out... > but that's a different story for another post. > > Drew > I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a > professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the tires are ok, the new guy says they're in very bad shape), but > this one is the most clear-cut and it pertains to safety. It could be that the leak just developed between the first and second inspections. The percentage of brake material is a subjective guesstimate. Unless you have something here that demonstrates clear incompetence or gross negligence, I doubt you have a case at all. You have to exercise some diligence in your selection of the mechanic. You should have some experience with them so that you know you can trust their assessment. >> I bought a car two weeks ago, after having it inspected by a >> professional shop. They rated the rear brakes at 40% and "found no [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You should have some experience with them so that you know you can > trust their assessment. What do you wanna bet he took it to the "cheapest" shop he could find ...? LOL! One of the links was wrong. Sould have been this one: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/VortexHeatExchanger/links/Scientific_Referenc e_001184019335/Steam_Water_plus_Cat_001189087087/ Naresh |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.