OT ROT Duty of Care?

My other car is having some cosmetic bodywork done under insurance
(big insurance company and their preferred nationwide reapir agents).

Just had a phone call to say that whilst the car has been with them,
the engine has developed a "heavy knock" which they have had a
specialist look at and diagnosed a slipped timing chain.

Bear in mind this is a 5l quad cam 32valve V8.

Clearly, I am a bit miffed. Where do I stand legally? Can I insist the
car is returned in the condition it was when it was taken away, ie
without a knackered engine? Do they have a "duty of car" for my
property whilst in their possesion?

David

In message <[email protected]>
rads <[email protected]> wrote:

> My other car is having some cosmetic bodywork done under insurance
> (big insurance company and their preferred nationwide reapir agents).
>
> Just had a phone call to say that whilst the car has been with them,
> the engine has developed a "heavy knock" which they have had a
> specialist look at and diagnosed a slipped timing chain.
>
> Bear in mind this is a 5l quad cam 32valve V8.
>
> Clearly, I am a bit miffed. Where do I stand legally? Can I insist the
> car is returned in the condition it was when it was taken away, ie
> without a knackered engine? Do they have a "duty of car" for my
> property whilst in their possesion?
>
> David

Yes - but proving anything may be a bit tricky - I don't suppose
you noted the mileage before it went in ( I think you might
be able to see what I'm getting at......)

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems

They have a duty of care not to do anything to cause the timing chain to
slip but it would doubtless be an uphill task for you to prove what they did
to cause it as timing chains can slip if things are going wrong anyway

There's no such thing as justice - I'm a lawyer so I should know !!!

Well, they have a duty not to break it. However, from their point of
view they cannot take complete responsibility if things wear out /
break etc whilst they have them under their roof.

Burden of proof seems pretty impossible really. Did they thrash it
round the carpark after hours? You'll probably never know, unless you
have a tracking system or similar fitted.


--

Tim Hobbs

'58 Series 2 88" aka "Stig"
'77 101FC Ambulance aka "Burrt"
'03 Volvo V70

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 10:18:07 +0100, "Julian
PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net" <[email protected]> wrote:

>There's no such thing as justice - I'm a lawyer so I should know !!!

Lost a few cases recently huh?

"There's no such thing as justice" is usually the cry of a defendant
being led down the stairs - refreshing to hear it from a lawyer ;-)

Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!

In message <dce41924d%[email protected]>, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> writes
>In message <[email protected]>
> rads <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My other car is having some cosmetic bodywork done under insurance
>> (big insurance company and their preferred nationwide reapir agents).
>>
>> Just had a phone call to say that whilst the car has been with them,
>> the engine has developed a "heavy knock" which they have had a
>> specialist look at and diagnosed a slipped timing chain.
>>
>> Bear in mind this is a 5l quad cam 32valve V8.
>>
>> Clearly, I am a bit miffed. Where do I stand legally? Can I insist the
>> car is returned in the condition it was when it was taken away, ie
>> without a knackered engine? Do they have a "duty of car" for my
>> property whilst in their possesion?
>>
>> David
>
>Yes - but proving anything may be a bit tricky - I don't suppose
>you noted the mileage before it went in ( I think you might
>be able to see what I'm getting at......)
>
>Richard
And check the engine no when it comes back.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

Julian PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net wrote:
> Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
>
>
or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ... just
defer success ;-)

--
Regards

Steve G

"SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" <"dot> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Julian PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net wrote:
>> Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
>>
>>
> or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ... just
> defer success ;-)
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Steve G
--------------------------------------
"Falling down is not failure....
Failure is not getting up again."

Joskin

> or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ... just
> defer success ;-)

David Jacobs' pearls of wisdom.... A classic ;-)

"SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" <"dot> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Julian PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net wrote:
> > Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
> >
> >
> or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ... just
> defer success ;-)
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Steve G

One of the radio stations here in Aus was having a great laugh at that new
policy. is it right that teachers are no longer allowed to say "sorry Jimmy
but you 'failed' the exam yesterday" but must now say "unfortunately jimmy
you have deffered success on the previous exam." i reckon i have just about
heard it all by now, but i am certain these ****ers will come up with
something even more ridiculous next week.

Sam.

so Samuel was, like...
> "SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" <"dot> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Julian PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net wrote:
>>> Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
>>>
>>>
>> or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ...
>> just defer success ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> Steve G
>
> One of the radio stations here in Aus was having a great laugh at
> that new policy. is it right that teachers are no longer allowed to
> say "sorry Jimmy but you 'failed' the exam yesterday" but must now
> say "unfortunately jimmy you have deffered success on the previous
> exam." i reckon i have just about heard it all by now, but i am
> certain these ****ers will come up with something even more
> ridiculous next week.
>
> Sam.

To set this in context - this was a proposal by *one* delegate at a
conference of the smallest teaching union in the UK. Oddly, the PAT was set
up as a pro-conservative anti-strike union, and therefore might be expected
to be anti-PC, but there we are. The proposal is likely to be adopted, but
given the size of the union, it will have zero influence.

Actually, I can see the point, although not the daft way it is expressed.
One of the big problems with UK education today is the way that the
comprehensive revolution of the 60s/70s was accompanied by changes to the
curriculum that meant that all children had to follow a watered-down
academic curriculum, and things like motor vehicle work, woodwork and
metalwork were dropped. From this, the less academic children automatically
became failures. There was nothing for them to succeed at. The "deferred
success" idiocy should be seen as part of a mindset that is looking for ways
in which the non-academic can succeed - practical, real-life stuff - rather
than condemning them to perpetual failure in pseudo-academic subjects. As a
country, we have too many "graduates" in ridiculous disciplines such as
media studies, and a shortage of plumbers and electricians. So it isn't all
that daft.

But yes, we all had a good laugh at the "deferred success" episode. Our
sales teams at work all now refer to a "deferred sale" rather than a "miss".


--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

In message <[email protected]>, Julian
PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net <[email protected]> writes
>Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
>
>
Ah, deferred success.
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message <[email protected]>
"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote:

> so Samuel was, like...
> > "SteveG <"s.goodfellow"@blueyonder" <"dot> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Julian PollardPOP_Server=pop.freeuk.net wrote:
> >>> Never lose them - just some times don't win them !!!
> >>>
> >>>
> >> or as explained on Radio 2 earlier this week - you don't fail ...
> >> just defer success ;-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Steve G
> >
> > One of the radio stations here in Aus was having a great laugh at
> > that new policy. is it right that teachers are no longer allowed to
> > say "sorry Jimmy but you 'failed' the exam yesterday" but must now
> > say "unfortunately jimmy you have deffered success on the previous
> > exam." i reckon i have just about heard it all by now, but i am
> > certain these ****ers will come up with something even more
> > ridiculous next week.
> >
> > Sam.
>
> To set this in context - this was a proposal by *one* delegate at a
> conference of the smallest teaching union in the UK. Oddly, the PAT was set
> up as a pro-conservative anti-strike union, and therefore might be expected
> to be anti-PC, but there we are. The proposal is likely to be adopted, but
> given the size of the union, it will have zero influence.
>
> Actually, I can see the point, although not the daft way it is expressed.
> One of the big problems with UK education today is the way that the
> comprehensive revolution of the 60s/70s was accompanied by changes to the
> curriculum that meant that all children had to follow a watered-down
> academic curriculum, and things like motor vehicle work, woodwork and
> metalwork were dropped. From this, the less academic children automatically
> became failures. There was nothing for them to succeed at. The "deferred
> success" idiocy should be seen as part of a mindset that is looking for ways
> in which the non-academic can succeed - practical, real-life stuff - rather
> than condemning them to perpetual failure in pseudo-academic subjects. As a
> country, we have too many "graduates" in ridiculous disciplines such as
> media studies, and a shortage of plumbers and electricians. So it isn't all
> that daft.
>

We used to have a system for that, that may not have been prefect, but
it mostly worked well enough - Grammar schools and Secondary Modern
schools.
Mind you, having been a victim of the moron that came up with ITA,
all proponents of ill thought out enducation schemes should be made to
sweep streets until they think about it properly........ having met a lot
of future teachers while courting the ex, making sure they had worked
in the real world before teaching might have had some merit.

When the ex was at teacher training college the current "big thing" was
that long division was un-necessary. I asked a proponent of this
blissfully stupid idea what my hourly rate was if I got 223.80 for
a 40 hour week, no calculators allowed. The reply was something
along the lines of "ah........."

> But yes, we all had a good laugh at the "deferred success" episode. Our
> sales teams at work all now refer to a "deferred sale" rather than a "miss".
>

Much easier than having to work out why the sale failed ;-)

Richard (banned from PTA events for arguing!)


--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
Running a business in a Microsoft free environment - it can be done
Powered by Risc-OS - you won't get a virus from us!!
Helping keep Land Rovers on and off the road to annoy the Lib Dems