Advice on what is reasonable in this situation

Forums › Off topic › Advice on what is reasonable in this situation

1 | 2 | 3

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#546346 17-Nov-2011 10:15

Got a vague memory of something from my legal class at uni that might be relevant here (IANAL)
Isn?t there some legal term for when people set an expectation about the charges for something and this means they cannot suddenly spring the charges on you? i.e. because he never charged you before despite putting a price on the contract, he sets an expectation that the rental is complimentary and therefore unless he specifically states that it will be different this time, then he should not be allowed to charge you.

Not that this helps you much in this situation since it wouldn?t be worth going to court over this amount.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#546360 17-Nov-2011 10:31

networkn: Yes and if his products were more expensive because he had built in those costs, then that would be valid, but to suggest that the loan cars are free and then charge an insurance surcharge indicates a different thing altogether.

But did you not sign a contract to pay the $15/day to cover his insurance costs? In which case he is entitled to expect payment and it would seem to me that his doing so does not contravene insurance legislation. You may hold a different moral stance but that stance does not make law.

On the general matters I think I am pretty much with Jeffnz on this one. But it seems you are getting the lien over your car released so all is ending well at least in respect of getting your car back.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#546362 17-Nov-2011 10:35

Well he wasn't unreasonable in that respect. He was happy to let me drive my car away and get our stroller back etc, without issue. I think you are missing the point that everytime prior the same form was filled out, and still we were not charged. It's misleading at best.

I'll consider his offer of 50% but I'm never going back there as a result, so the $350 he makes now compared to the business he will lose I wouldn't have thought worth it.

TheUngeek

924 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#546404 17-Nov-2011 11:33

There will always be extra parts in a large repair.
You cannot see everything when quoting and often you find more damaged stuffed once you have pulled the car apart. SO that's normal.

As for holding the stroller, he is not allowed to do that.

talisker

65 posts

Master Geek

#546414 17-Nov-2011 11:49

NonprayingMantis: Got a vague memory of something from my legal class at uni that might be relevant here (IANAL)
Isn?t there some legal term for when people set an expectation about the charges for something and this means they cannot suddenly spring the charges on you? i.e. because he never charged you before despite putting a price on the contract, he sets an expectation that the rental is complimentary and therefore unless he specifically states that it will be different this time, then he should not be allowed to charge you.

Not that this helps you much in this situation since it wouldn?t be worth going to court over this amount.

Yes, I was thinking that too. But is it not the other way round? i.e. if you hadn't signed the contract but had paid the guy the charge every time your car was repaired, you can't then refuse to pay this time on the basis you didn't sign a contract.

John2010

532 posts

Ultimate Geek

#546424 17-Nov-2011 12:04

I certainly find it an interesting concept that if a supplier supplies something or a service free to a customer when the contract specifies a payment, then that means that he has to supply the same thing free to you in the future despite a payment being again specified in the contract

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#546427 17-Nov-2011 12:13

john2010: As I have repeatedly stated, it's about the fact he didn't communicate to me that despite the prior 6 times I have had my car there without being charged, he was going to charge me this time. If he had of communicated the fact, I would have had a choice to pay or go elsewhere. I can't believe you would be happy in this situation to get an unexpected bill for $700.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

kingjj

1728 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#546430 17-Nov-2011 12:20

TheUngeek:
As for holding the stroller, he is not allowed to do that.

Could it be argued the stroller was being held as a Lien? I'm confident the car could have been withheld under NZ law as a Lien, not sure about the property contained within though.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek

#546432 17-Nov-2011 12:23

networkn: I'll consider his offer of 50% but I'm never going back there as a result, so the $350 he makes now compared to the business he will lose I wouldn't have thought worth it.

However.... if you were to have no other accidents he would be getting no other business anyway.

Guess what I'm saying is that it's a hollow threat. Most people do not need regular repeat services from collision repairers.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#546435 17-Nov-2011 12:25

In respect to your original question and the title of the topic "Advice on what is reasonable in this situation".

IMO If you signed a contract which clearly stated that you will be charged $15/day then I would expect to be charged $15/day irrespective of how many times before he has waived the fee. This is reasonable.

If you didn't want to pay the fee, you should have checked with him that the fee would be waived as he had previously done. That would have given him an opportunity to explain why he can't afford to continue to do that, and you the opportunity to either take the car elsewhere or negotiate.

You haven't indicated how long you were previously given the loan car for in your other dealings, perhaps he felt 41 days without his loan car was too much to waive on this occasion.

If he was negligent (ie most body shops would have seen the additional damage), then I agree with comments that you should not have been expected to continue to pay beyond the expected completion date of the repair - which you say was 2 weeks - but again only if he didn't contact you to inform you of the delays and ask if you were happy to keep the loan car.

The fact that he has knocked 50% off the charge shows he is not unreasonable - IMO.

Remember, there is nothing for free in business - the cost has to be charged somewhere. The garages that are loaning you a car for free are either not covering it with insurance (your risk) or they will charge more for the repairs.

You obviously trusted him and rewarded the quality of his work by repeating business. Sometimes better the devil you know.

Procrastination eventually pays off.

wellygary

8325 posts

Uber Geek

#546437 17-Nov-2011 12:27

networkn: john2010: As I have repeatedly stated, it's about the fact he didn't communicate to me that despite the prior 6 times I have had my car there without being charged, he was going to charge me this time. If he had of communicated the fact, I would have had a choice to pay or go elsewhere. I can't believe you would be happy in this situation to get an unexpected bill for $700.

Yes the $700 is unexpected ,but did you question him not charging you $15 a day in the past?
If so what was his response??

The question really seems to come down to whether it was reasonable for you to assume that he would waive the charge for this long period you had the loan car,

How long were the periods he gave you the loan car previously and waived the fee?

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#546455 17-Nov-2011 13:14

I think it was very reasonable to assume, but everyone has their own take on it obviously.

At the end of the day with a repairer covered by insurance, my priority is a loan car, a good repair and no cost to me. There are still repairers who can meet that criteria hence I see him having more to lose than me by charging me this time when he didn't before.

At the end of the day from my perspective it's his lack of communication that caused this issue. The fact I had the car for 41 days or 14 is irrelevant, as the cost of the repair on a 41 job should be substantially more than that of a 14 day repair.

Anyways moving on I guess.

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#546460 17-Nov-2011 13:21

networkn: The fact I had the car for 41 days or 14 is irrelevant, as the cost of the repair on a 41 job should be substantially more than that of a 14 day repair.

Your assumption is based on an expectation that he is working on the car for significantly more time. In reality he is probably waiting for things to happen - parts to arrive, paint to dry, available time in his busy schedule. Not seeing how much he actually charged for the work - you could be right!

Procrastination eventually pays off.

networkn

Networkn
32351 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#546465 17-Nov-2011 13:26

Average cost of prior repairs ~1000 this time $6500

StarBlazer

961 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#546470 17-Nov-2011 13:32

networkn: Average cost of prior repairs ~1000 this time $6500

Fair enough - I presume you are happy with the price you were charged for the repair.

Then with that information asking you to pay the full 41 days insurance is probably less reasonable considering the delays were caused by the repairers inaccurate estimate.

The fact that he has offered to only charge 50% seems good to me, but you could argue that you only expected at worst to pay for 14 days insurance.

If he's a good repairer - it may be worth staying on-side just in case - like I said you obviously rate his work.

Good luck

Procrastination eventually pays off.

1 | 2 | 3