Whats the reasonable approach: Car Mechanic new part fiited and broken while finding other faults

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Whats the reasonable approach: Car Mechanic new part fiited and broken while finding other faults

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#305813 6-Jun-2023 08:51

I'm not after a lawyer or legal advice, more the what is lay persons reasonable approach to a complex issue. I am avoiding going in to details as this issue is ongoing and who knows what websites mechanics read! We've been taking our cars to this mechanics for years now and we've always trusted and had good service from them so I am confident they are not attempting to pull a fast one.

I've got a car with the mechanic to fix an issue that came up. It was uncertain exactly what the cause was but it was likely to be one of two areas that are linked. Both areas have a price to work on with area 1 being much cheaper and easier to access than area 2. Area 1 was investigated and shown to have part failure which was replaced however this didn't solve the problem but demonstrated that area 2 was potentially also an issue. Area 2 was opened up and an issue found and fixed and the car reassembled.

Upon testing the car, it was found that the problem that put the car in the mechanics in the first place was still present and a quick investigation turned out that the new part in Area 1 had failed when it was tested (prior to opening up area 2) as area 2s issue is directly linked and was undiagnosed at that time. It was only after replacing area 1 did the mechanic then look at area 2 for issues. Had we focused on fixing the more expensive area 2 intially, then area 1 would still have been an issue and required replacing but no further damage would have occured during testing - hindsight is a wonderful thing but the cost difference between areas 1 and 2 are substantial on this car and from all evidence you could go either way to start with.

The result of all this is that the new part installed in area 1 requires replacing. The mechanic has offered to pay half the cost of this work and states that due to the failure of area 2 being unknown at the point of area 1s repair this is reasonable. I have never had this before in a car, but then this issue has never happened either and I can see the problems it brings... In light of this (lack of detail at this stage in the post) content, does it seem reasonable to split the costs of a replacement to area1 50/50. I'm inclined to agree rather than push it all on the mechanic as whilst area 2 was a possibility we wanted to explore the cheaper option first.

What are peoples thoughts on this?

1 | 2

5810 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#3085323 6-Jun-2023 09:20

It sounds reasonable to me.

From what you are saying, mechanic replaced part 1. Did not fix issue because the issue was with Part 2.

The Part 2 Issue is possible what caused Part 1 to fail, and replacing Part 1 without doing Part 2 caused the new Part 1 to fail again.

If this was not reasonably forseeable (and if it was not known that a faulty part 2 would cause part 1 to fail), then I think your mechanic is being reasonable. If the mechanic should have known that one of the reasons Part 1 could fail is Part 2 being faulty, then one might say that they should have known that only replacing part 1 was likely to cause it to fail again.

Bung

6480 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3085324 6-Jun-2023 09:22

I'd start with "due to the failure of area 2 being unknown at the point of area 1s repair ". Sometimes you'll find that a common fault is well known by everyone except the local dealer because it's never happened to them before. To nobody's surprise there may be a manufacturer's service note or the owner forums for that brand are full of examples. Should they have known that 2 should have been the starting point?

If they advised going with 1&2 but you wanted to try 1 by itself then it's probably not unreasonable to pay for the repeat repair. Dentists will happily charge for trying to save a tooth and then charge again for the crown.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#3085325 6-Jun-2023 09:24

Thanks Trig, the issue was that both areas 1 and 2 are highly linked and the car cannot operate without either of them working. Area 1s part had failed when removed from the car and inspected but there was no way of telling, without removing area 2, that the part had failed of its own accord OR from a failure in area 2. It is likely now, looking back that area 1s part failed due to a failure in area 2 and whilst this was always a possibility, it just wasn't possible to be sure wtihout removing area 2 at the same time for inspection with the associated costs.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#3085329 6-Jun-2023 09:29

Bung: I'd start with "due to the failure of area 2 being unknown at the point of area 1s repair ". Sometimes you'll find that a common fault is well known by everyone except the local dealer because it's never happened to them before. To nobody's surprise there may be a manufacturer's service note or the owner forums for that brand are full of examples. Should they have known that 2 should have been the starting point?

If they advised going with 1&2 but you wanted to try 1 by itself then it's probably not unreasonable to pay for the repeat repair. Dentists will happily charge for trying to save a tooth and then charge again for the crown.

All the information we could find on the topic suggested that either area could be the cause because of how they are linked but unless you pull them both out at the same time (and at the cost of doing so) we agreed to start with the cheaper option which was area 1. The part from Area 1 was damaged and unusable and did require replacing. It was the testing of this replacement part that a) demonstrated there was still an issue and likely to be in area 2 and b) caused damage to this new part due to the area 2 damage which was undiagnosed at this time.

The mechanic didn't suggest to undertake a repair on both areas straight away and talking to their dealer friends this didn't appear to a common problem with parts of the car, just something out of the ordinary.

allio

885 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3085338 6-Jun-2023 09:50

It's bad luck for you but I don't think your mechanic is really at fault in any way here.

As a general concept there's often a dillemma between trying the cheap fix first, at $10, going for the more expensive fix at the outset, at $25, or potentially having to do one after the other for $35. It's only with hindsight that you know what the best option is. The $35 option is never the plan, just the downside risk attached to the cheap fix. At the outset the cheap fix is a very reasonable strategy that often works out, in which case you breathe a big sigh of relief that you didn't waste money on the expensive fix.

In all of these cases I don't think there's any presumption that the service provider owes you anything, unless there's reason to suspect that they should have known at the outset that the cheap fix didn't have a reasonable prospect of working. The cheap fix not only not working, but actually needing to be repeated in order to successfully fix the underlying problem, is a real worst-case scenario but that couldn't have been predicted.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2844 posts

Uber Geek

#3085343 6-Jun-2023 09:59

This is a tricky one. The way I look at it, you engaged professional services to undertake work following their advice.

Given they suggested two possible routes to address the issue, and the closely-linked nature of those parts, that suggests to me that part 2 causing part 1 to fail was something that could have been reasonably foreseen. You chose an option knowing that it may not rectify the problem and assumed a reasonable and disclosed risk in doing so; the fix may not have worked. They have a duty of care to ensure their actions (or inaction) does not cause you harm. Their failure to notice a related issue while replacing the part or testing it should be on them IMO.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#3085344 6-Jun-2023 09:59

allio:

It's bad luck for you but I don't think your mechanic is really at fault in any way here.

As a general concept there's often a dillemma between trying the cheap fix first, at $10, going for the more expensive fix at the outset, at $25, or potentially having to do both for $35 (or in your case, even more as you now have to replace 2x part A instead of 1x). It's only with hindsight that you know what the best option is. At the outset the cheap fix is a very reasonable strategy that often works out, in which case you breathe a big sigh of relief that you didn't waste money on the expensive fix.

In all of these cases I don't think there's any presumption that the service provider owes you anything, unless there's reason to suspect that they should have known at the outset that the cheap fix didn't have a reasonable prospect of working.

Yeah this my conundrum in some ways. Whilst the issue was not the same as using a cheap imported aftermarket vs. main OEM supplier, its that areas 1 and 2 are linked but seperate and fixing area 1 could have solved the problem, i.e. area 1 was broken so fixing it could have reasonably solved the issue but in hidnsight, area 2 was the likely cause of area 1 failing (although the part for area 1 was on its last legs by the look of the type of failure). If we had elected to remove both area 1 and 2 and inspect before doing works, we could have incurred a ~$2K bill for labour alone I suspect plus the fix to area 1 if it was only area 1.. Ultimately a large proportion, maybe 3/4s, is in the area 2 work anyway and both needed doing... the question was as a result of this process a second part for area 1 is required as a result of damage caused in testing to see if the area 1 fixed had solved the problem... I will expand on this topic with the right area names etc. just to put you kind folks out of your misery once agreed with the mechanic :-)

Sharesies kids

Free kids accounts - trade shares and funds (NZ, US) with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#3085374 6-Jun-2023 11:09

SirHumphreyAppleby:

This is a tricky one. The way I look at it, you engaged professional services to undertake work following their advice.

Given they suggested two possible routes to address the issue, and the closely-linked nature of those parts, that suggests to me that part 2 causing part 1 to fail was something that could have been reasonably foreseen. You chose an option knowing that it may not rectify the problem and assumed a reasonable and disclosed risk in doing so; the fix may not have worked. They have a duty of care to ensure their actions (or inaction) does not cause you harm. Their failure to notice a related issue while replacing the part or testing it should be on them IMO.

The part in area 1 had already failed prior to the uncovering of the issue in area 2 - its internal seals had broken. It was its replacement that was broken due to further failures in the other area that where not identified until the change in area 1 showed nothing worked... I.e. had area 2 been ok then the replacement part in area 1 would have worked fine and not suffered the undected damage.

SirHumphreyAppleby

2844 posts

Uber Geek

#3085376 6-Jun-2023 11:16

Benoire:

The part in area 1 had already failed prior to the uncovering of the issue in area 2 - its internal seals had broken. It was its replacement that was broken due to further failures in the other area that where not identified until the change in area 1 showed nothing worked... I.e. had area 2 been ok then the replacement part in area 1 would have worked fine and not suffered the undected damage.

I am aware of that. You have to pay to fix both areas 1 and area 2, since area 1 needed work you were aware of that possibility of work being required on area 2 going into the repairs. The only question is who should pay to rectify area 1 given the damage to the new part. IMO, that's more on the mechanic than you, because they have a duty of care and you're paying them for their professional services.

lxsw20

3552 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3085380 6-Jun-2023 11:29

SirHumphreyAppleby:

That suggests to me that part 2 causing part 1 to fail was something that could have been reasonably foreseen.

With the little context that OP has chosen to give, I don't see how you can fairly make that assessment. We don't even know if it's mechanical, electrical etc failure.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3085687 6-Jun-2023 17:54

All I'm going to say is this is common and difficult to prove.

I have heard of so many fixes causing problems, and have happened to my old cars a few times.

Old car bits are literally held together by hardened sludge.

Move something here and sludge is loosened there and it fails there.

But as to is mechanic at fault I don't know. I don't think you can fault them too much.

MadEngineer

4274 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3085724 6-Jun-2023 20:02

Guessing that part 1 is the top end and part 2 is the bottom end. Say a motor is smoking and they start with the top end, $1000.

Problem isn’t fixed but to fix the bottom end you’re going to pay $2000

At this point you realise you should have been offered $3000 to simply replace the whole engine.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

Wheelbarrow01

1723 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Chorus

#3085802 6-Jun-2023 22:51

If the mechanic you chose is a general mechanic rather than a trained specialist in your specific make of vehicle, then I'd say the 50/50 split is reasonable.

If I take my VW to the VW dealer for repairs, I expect them to have a handle on common problems and the most appropriate course of action, taking into account their own manuals, processes and service bulletins.

However if I take my VW to "Joe's Garage" down the road, then I cannot be at all certain that Joe has ever worked on any VWs at all, let alone a VW with my specific problem.

Goosey

2829 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3086754 9-Jun-2023 06:50

Sounds reasonable.

however if the part that was fitted then failed (in isolation), then that specific part should be replaced for free under warranty of that part.

labour etc obviously is seperate.

Is the garage an MTA member? You can always ask the MTA for further advice to back up the progression of this situation.

another question is, are the parts and areas in question mechanical or electronic? (Or a mixture of both).
did it require a specialist area, e.g. did it require mainly an auto sparky (say sensor or cpu operating somthing else), or was it more like a pump or cog (say timing cog or chain or belt that then failed and caused issue with the cam/rod/piston timings)

Did it need a OBD2 scan ? (What did that show)?

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#3088230 10-Jun-2023 17:34

Hi folks

So I'll expand on this now :-) The car is a 2010 Audi S4 6sp Manual with 160,000km on the clock.

Back in March, we drove to Westfield Newmarket in really heavy stop start traffic from out west Auckland, this was after my partner had driven from west auckland to Manukau in the morning in really heavy stop start traffic as well.

We parked it near the top floor in the mall and went inside for about 3 hours... when we got back, the car started ok as normal but would not engage any gear with the engine running and the clutch was odd, almost like you where pushing through treacle. The clutch did however have full travel length as the car won't start unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed.

After a mammoth 4 hour wait for AA roadside and then 2 hours of careful removal from the carpark (word of advice - DO NOT breakdown completely in a modern multistory car park... it is really hard to get out and we had to use the up ramps to get the recovery vehicle plus dolly down), it was taken to our home and we waited for the mechanic to have space to take it.

A week later it went in to the mechanic who had suggested over the phone it was likely to be the clutch bearing or clutch plates but given the treacley feel of the clutch he thought it could also be the master/slave cylinder.

The mechanic, after testing and exploring the car without pulling things apart, said it could be either the clutch or the clutch cylinders or both but said the cylinders was the cheaper starting point but it was my call.

I agreed with this perspective as clearly cylinders are easy to remove and check compared to dismantling a decent chunk of front to pull out the gearbox to check the clutch. He removed the cylinders and found that the master cylinder was bust, internal seals had gone and it was just floppy... this explained why the clutch felt like it was going through treacle. He ordered new parts and the waiting game began as there are no aftermarket Audi cylinders available at present and Audi refused to sell their existing stock until their additional stuff arrived from Singapore... 3 weeks later, parts arrived and where fitted.

Mechanic tested clutch pedal and it moved as smooth as a new clutch pedal system should BUT it still wouldn't engage gear with the engine running and when tried that way there was a bang from under the car; he then proceeded to advise that they will have to drop the gearbox as he felt that there was likely to be something stuck in the clutch plate area.

This proved to be accurate as it was found that the clutch plates where busted completely, the bearing was shattered and the fork was bent. Ordered the new parts (full clutch & dual mass flywheels) plus new audi fork. Clutch was locally sourced (OEM model but not Audi branded), fork was again a specialist part and had to be ordered from Audi and again no stock spare so we had to wait another ~4 weeks for the part to arrive.

Everything was fitted and the gearbox/car rebuilt (yay! its been about 9 weeks at this point since the car broke down). This joy turned bad as we come to the point of this original post - as a result of the clutch being stuffed, the replaced master cylinder had broken and was unusable due to a hairline crack.

So we are the point now where the mechanic has ordered a second master from Audi and we are waiting again another 2-3 weeks for it to arrive sadly, the clutch is brand new and fitted with a refinforced fork from the b8.5 refresh and once arrived it should all work fine.

So it appears that the really heavy traffic on that saturday in March had overheated the clutch (we think it was the original and has done ~160K km) and it had fused together after sitting cooling, the master cylinder then likely burst when we tried to engage gear (but again that may have been failing too - internal seals had popped) leading to it not feeling like it should and also unable to move the clutch bearing. The replacement cylinder, being brand new, was able to generate the hydraulic pressure needed but due to the clutch being siezed broke and then shattered more of the clutch...

So there we are, a series of linked events (in quite a long post). We felt that more care should have been taken with the replacement cylinders as it was always possible the clutch bearing/plates where a problem.. but I guess until you open it up you wouldn't know. In hindsight we should probably have said to remove both areas and then inspect and find the right course but that would have been 2K for the gearbox alone and I didn't want to spend that cash in case it wasn't a problem even though all stuff we read said it could have been...

We have agreed to half the cost each for the 2nd replacement cylinder as that seemed fair as the mechanic has removed the labour charges for it and we have occupied one of his hoists since April with a car that he couldn't fix due to issues securing parts from Audi.

1 | 2