Taking Mechanic to QCAT - Mediator Says I Need to Have Argument of Law or Point of Law

Lswaffi on 16/06/2020 - 10:46
Last edited 16/06/2020 - 10:55 by 1 other user

Hi guys.

I have a phone hearing (QCAT) tomorrow against an automatic mechanic franchise owner in Queensland (far north Queensland to be more precise) Now, my argument is that they misdiagnosed a part (front left wheel bearing) that they said that I needed (because of the part was "howling" and "grinding") in order to pass their safety inspection (they failed the inspection).

Anyway, I bought a new front left wheel bearing and got it installed by my regular mechanic. After a day or two, I took it back to them in order to get it passed because it was within the two weeks so I didn't have to pay extra (another $85 for safety inspection). They failed the inspection again because they said the same grinding and howling was still there. Now, I don't really want to get into the nitty-gritty of absolutely everything that went on because time is of the essence.

Now, at mediation, I was told by the mediator (who said he was also a lawyer) said that I needed an argument of law or point of law that I need to have in order to have a case. All I can think of now is a faulty diagnosis and the fact that having to buy a front left wheel bearing and have it installed to pass a safety inspection was an unnecessary cost because it did not fix the problem. This was by their own admission.

I'm hoping that I can have some helpful input from anyone out there that can give me a legal argument, a legal term to base my defence or argument on. Oh by the way, I am only going for $245.

Automotive

Comments

  • wallet72 on 16/06/2020 - 10:57

    I think it will depend on one or two main arguments…

    Firstly, would it have been reasonable deduction for a mechanic to make that the part was the cause of the problem?

    and

    Secondly, how 'wrong' they were (I mean replace front bearing vs something totally and utterly different)

    I've been to QCAT, all I can say is 'may the odds be ever in your favour;

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 12:05

      Thanks for that. In my opinion, they were absolutely wrong because they stated in the safety inspection that I needed to replace the front wheel bearing and that was the cause of the grinding and howling. I just filed a late bid application to Qcat for an extension to get some more evidence from my regular mechanic. I get the feeling that you are on the money when you say "may the odds be in your favour" I would be interested to know your experience with Qcat. This is going to be a phone hearing by the way so I'm not sure what to expect. Thanks again

      • wallet72 on 16/06/2020 - 12:40
        +7

        QCAT is not something to be overly worried or anxious about. There is no promise that it will go the way you expect, even if you are right. Saying that, make sure everything you have to say is backed up by documentation and evidence - notarised - and a good timeline or index for it all. The less they have to think or question, the better it is.

        And do not get angry or lose your temper. Be calm and firm, but not arrogant. The other side can say or lie as much as they like, you react it makes you look bad.

        My time in front of QCAT was a bit deflating. I provided code for the client exactly how they requested it, with monthly update meetings signed off by them. They still wanted all their money back because they didn't like the end result. It was thrown out, but it was a shame I had to sit there and listen to them dribble crap.

        • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 13:53
          +8

          Hey, thanks for the advice. Being calm and firm, not losing ones temper. That's great advice. The documentation etc is very good too. I'm sorry to hear about your deflating experience. Deep down straight away I know I have an uphill battle but at least it's not for sheep stations and there's a clause there that states they cannot sue me

  • jimbobaus on 16/06/2020 - 11:01
    +23

    Good Luck.
    You drove the car away and got the repairs done elsewhere (which is your right)

    but the mechanic simply has to argue that upon re-inspection a fault was found and they were unwilling to risk their inspection licence to pass the vehicle
    They will concede they advised it was a wheel bearing and that had they done the work and found it was not in fact the bearing they would of advised you accordingly and not charged you or replaced the bearing.

    They will also ask why your regular mechanic did not inspect the bearing before replacing it?
    How did they not diagnose the noise themselves.

    I do not suspect you are going to have much luck but would be very interested to hear what your result was.

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 12:08
      +1

      Thanks for your response, I will let you know what happened. I have just filed for an extension of time to get more evidence from my regular mechanic. It's a day before the hearing so I don't whether they will file it in time. I'll also let you know later about other questions you asked later today hopefully

    • taker on 19/06/2020 - 21:36

      Exactly

  • MS Paint on 16/06/2020 - 11:09
    +34

    Going to QCAT over this? Geeezus

    • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 11:20
      +1

      That's what I was thinking… Who goes from "failed roadworthy" to "legal action"? There is either more to this, or someone is just doing this to Karen out…

      • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 13:56
        +4

        it's the faulty diagnosis and the cost of having to get the part and get it installed. It's not for "failed roadworthy" and I tried to negotiate with them a few times but they wouldn't have a bar of it. I think they deserve being sued and having to cough up the money. (profanity) them

        • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 15:05
          +3

          I think they deserve being sued and having to cough up the money. (profanity) them

          So, Karrening out it is then…

          What you should have done was get a second opinion before you went replacing parts. They were doing a RWC, not a full diagnosis of what the noise was.

          • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 12:18
            +6

            @pegaxs: I entirely disagree that OP is “karenning it out”.

            It is not unreasonable that people carry out their jobs properly.

            If the mechanic diagnosed the problem as one thing, which the OP got replaced, and it turns out that their incorrect assessment cost the OP money the mechanic should wear the cost.

            Good on you OP for pursuing it. If more people were held accountable perhaps folks wouldn’t be so blasé about doing their jobs properly

            • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 13:23
              +7

              @parsimonious one: Can disagree all you like, but the fact is that OP is trying to use QCAT as a stick because they feel wronged. This is the next step above "I want to speak to the manager" when the manager tells you to "(fropanity) off". This is absolutely vexatious and is for no other reason that OP wants to waste someone's time.

              It is not unreasonable that people carry out their jobs properly.

              They did. They were asked to perform a RWC inspection, which they did. They were NOT paid to diagnose issues with the vehicle. Their job is to check that the car is safe to be driven on public roads and report to the owner if there are any issues that would be unsafe. Nothing more.

              It's then up to the owner to decide what they want to do about the reported issues. Ask them to fix it, or take the vehicle and get the repairs done elsewhere. Once OP decided to take the vehicle to another mechanic, that's where the RWC inspector's obligation to diagnose anything ends.

              The fault lays with the OP and mechanic OP took it to. They are the ones that failed. OP should have reported to their own mechanic that the RWC inspector said there was an issue (howling/grinding noise). Then OP's mechanic should have diagnosed what the issue is. OP should be taking their mechanic to QCAT.

              And yes, good on you OP for wasting your time, the mediators time and the roadworthy testers time all over $85 inspection.

              • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 15:12
                -1

                @pegaxs: RWC mechanic was paid to assess the car's road worthiness and if the vehicle was deemed not road worthy to advise the OP what the defect was that required rectifying.

                They guessed, they got it wrong, they should accept responsibility.

                • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 16:43
                  +6

                  @parsimonious one:

                  RWC mechanic was paid to assess the car's road worthiness

                  And that is all they are paid to do. Check if it is safe and report any issues, not to spend time diagnosing any issues they do find. Check, find, report. That's all a RWC inspection is.

                  They guessed

                  Emphasis on the word "guessed". They were not paid to diagnose, so what you receive in the place of a paid diagnosis is an unpaid guess.

                  If OP wanted a definitive answer, they should have paid to have the problem diagnosed correctly, not relied on a roadworthy inspector to make suggestions… OP was told there was an issue and what it might have been and then OP decided to take it elsewhere and replace a part based on a guess instead of paying for someone to actually test and diagnose the issue.

                  they should accept responsibility.

                  No way in hell should they. A RWC inspection is just that. What you do with the information given to you after the inspection is up to you to decide.

                  • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 19:07

                    @pegaxs:

                    Emphasis on the word "guessed". They were not paid to diagnose, so what you receive in the place of a paid diagnosis is an unpaid guess

                    Classic weasel words. The inspector (a qualified mechanic) assessed the car, told the OP the reason it failed was that a part needed replacing, which the OP diligently did and now the guy is trying to shirk responsibility for the consequences of that poor advice.

                    • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 20:57
                      +4

                      @parsimonious one: The inspector inspected the vehicle. Told OP that it had a howling/grinding noise. This would have been noted on the RWC as the reason for failure. Until OP shows us a copy of any paperwork or evidence where it is stated by the RWC inspection that "Left hand front wheel bearing requires replacement", all of this is assumptions and speculations and is biased by only having access to OP's side of the story.

                      The inspector… told the OP the reason it failed was that a part needed replacing

                      You were not there, you don't know what was said, so anything outside of that is nothing more than hearsay. It's not "weasel words" it's facts. It is NOT the duty of the RWC examiner to diagnose issues related to failing an inspection. It is their job to note what is roadworthy and what is not. Upon failing a RWC, it is then up to the inspector to notify the owner of why it failed so the owner can rectify the issues.

                      consequences of that poor advice.

                      What advice? They didn't diagnose anything. The point of a RWC is to check that a vehicle is safe to be on the road, not to spend half a day diagnosing it if it does fail. They are seperate work functions. Now, if OP paid for a diagnosis on the noise, and they said or noted on the RWC "wheel bearing", there might be a case, but that dissipates as soon as OP takes their car elsewhere to have the work done.

                      • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 22:59

                        @pegaxs:

                        all of this is assumptions and speculations

                        I'm not assuming or speculating about anything.

                        I'm basing my comments on what was provided by the OP.

                        From the OP "my argument is that they misdiagnosed a part (front left wheel bearing) that they said that I needed (because of the part was "howling" and "grinding") in order to pass their safety inspection"

                        If that's what the RWC mechanic told OP and it transpired that the wheel bearing didnt need replacing then I think the mechanic should be held responsible for the bad advice.

                        The only assumptions and speculation relate to what you seem to think the RWC inspection does/ doesn't entail, what the inspector should/would have said and what the OP did/ didn't pay for.

                        • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 23:33
                          +3

                          @parsimonious one: If you’re basing your version on what OP is saying, it is based on assumptions and speculation. You don’t have the side of the story from the RWC tester. You only have OP’s version. This version is inherently biased to make OP look more favourable.

                          You are taking OP’s word for what was said to them. This is hearsay. You are offering up information that you heard from someone else and only one side of what happened. These are not facts, but assumptions.

                          I, on the other hand, are removing the “story” aspect from this and telling you what is involved and what is not involved in conducting a RWC check. There is no assumptions on that. You are free to look up what is involved in a roadworthy check. Your local state authority will have a website where you can look up what is done on a roadworthy check. It sure as hell doesn’t say “diagnose the faults found”

                          I have performed enough pre-inspections and dealt with our roadworthy tester enough in the last week to know what they do and don’t do on an inspection.

                          And because you just don’t seem to get it, performing a RWC inspection does not include diagnosing what is the cause of the test failure. If your car fails an inspection, it’s up to you, as the owner, to take it somewhere and have it repaired, not for the inspector to diagnose it for free.

                          • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 23:54

                            @pegaxs: Fair enough. Let’s remove all aspects of the “story” to simplify things

                            Let’s just agree that if a mechanic gives bad/ incorrect advice, the mechanic should be liable/ responsible for outcomes of that advice.

                            Whilst focusing on what a RWC should/ shouldn’t entail, and what the inspector should/ shouldn’t have said and what the OP did/ didn’t pay for, you are ignoring that the crux of the matter is that the OP feels he was given incorrect advice and is trying to seek recourse for the costs incurred as a result of that advice. For some reason that is unacceptable to you.

                            Regardless of whether the advice was paid for or included with the RWC the OP asserts it was proffered and if it was given the mechanic should be responsible.

                            • Chandler on 19/06/2020 - 08:47
                              +3

                              @parsimonious one: So

                              • You ask me to check your car over for roadworthiness.
                                *I fail it because of "howling" and "grinding" in the front left wheel
                              • You ask me what is causing the noise, I say it could be the bearing
                              • You take your car back, get the bearing replaced
                              • You return to me for another inspection
                              • I fail it again because of "howling" and "grinding" in the front left wheel.
                              • You take me to QCAT because I "misdiagnosed the fault".

                              Sound fair to you? I hope not.

                              Is this what happened? Could be. Don't know the full story.

                              And at the end of the day no-one will care unless it is in writing.

                    • brendanm on 19/06/2020 - 19:48

                      @parsimonious one: By your logic, if the engine light was on when the car was in for a rwc, the mechanic should spend 8 hours diagnosing the issues for free.

                      As pegaxs says, it is literally to tell say whether the vehicle is safe for the road, not to diagnose the exact issue.

                • whooah1979 on 18/06/2020 - 18:09
                  +5

                  @parsimonious one: A safety check in NSW is $42. That is about a 2 min check and 13 min to explaining to the customer what they have to do to pass the check.

                  There is no way they're going take the vehicle apart to find the noise for $42.

                  • woteva on 18/06/2020 - 20:45
                    +2

                    @whooah1979: Safety checks are free South Australia as we don't need them :)

                    • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 20:59

                      @woteva: Your state government site begs to differ… Albeit, you don't need them very often… So many shitbox cars on the roads in SA.

                      • woteva on 19/06/2020 - 19:23

                        @pegaxs: Only Defected, written-off, and modified vehicles require a roadworthy inspection before they can be registered in SA.
                        My 1995 Commodore last saw a mechanic in 2007 which was before I purchased it.

                        • brendanm on 19/06/2020 - 19:50

                          @woteva: As above, it's why there are so many shitboxes, same in WA.

                  • Repi on 19/06/2020 - 23:20

                    @whooah1979: That might be true for some, my car failed the pink slip test a few years ago at the NRMA, they gave me an itemised quote what needed to be done. Got it done somewhere cheaper, went back for re-testing, no problem. I know the NRMA are not backyard boys, but even from a lesser known mechanic I would expect they know what they are talking about and advise correctly. Fully understand OP's frustration.

      • taker on 19/06/2020 - 21:42
        +1

        For 245 bucks. Seriously get a job. Who's got the time and energy, straight up nothing to do with a bargain. OP goes to a mechanic of choice, then wants the advice, but shops the 245 service, to save what? Some peanuts at the cost of finding another mechanic, driving there paying, then rebook in drive back get another inspection. Seriously and then questions the inspector. What mechanic installs a bearing without testing the car, sure enough wanted to take the money, customer also doesn't actually care about safety as has been ignoring the noise up til now, and then mechanic installs said new bearing and doesn't notice there is still a problem.

        Second mechanic slimy just grabbing cash by undercutting first mechanic. Customer tight as, wondering why the world's against him/her. How about focus on bringing your car up to scratch. Really, you want to drive around with a problem.

        And your having a go at the mechanic you spent little money with, have no loyalty to and completely don't care about the purpose of the visit. Safety. Now wasting mediators time.

        Advice, leave it alone. Terminate mediation. Get your car fixed. And seriously consider dedicating more money to your Car and less time to the BS in life.

    • spackbace on 16/06/2020 - 11:24
      +16

      Over a total cost of $245… Day off work, stress etc involved in mediation and the studying up of legal precedence

      • sickre on 18/06/2020 - 13:39
        +1

        OP is unemployed so he has time to burn.

        • spackbace on 18/06/2020 - 14:05

          Yep, which wasn't pointed out till after I commented ;)

      • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 15:23
        +1

        I don't know why people are piling on the OP for pursuing it?!

        Over a total cost of $245… Day off work, stress etc involved in mediation and the studying up of legal precedence

        this exact statement could apply to the RWC mechanic as much as it could to the OP.

        Plus if the OP is to be believed and they tried to negotiate a lesser "settlement" it would appear the RWC mechanic is the one being particularly petty when they could settle with the OP for even less than $245. (Not to mention that it would probably be tax deductible for the RWC mechanic)

        • spackbace on 18/06/2020 - 16:11
          -1

          You have 6 comments in this thread to the same effect. Are you personally offended by this more than the OP or something? lol

          • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 18:38
            +2

            @spackbace: Haha, maybe I am. 🤔

            Perhaps all those times I’ve been let down by lacklustre products and service have taken a bigger toll on my psyche than I realised.

            In any event, go OP, I hope you win this one for you and all the parsimonious one’s who have been shafted by crappy businesses who take your money but not responsibility.

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 12:11
      +11

      Well, I tried to negotiate via mediation but they would not budge at all. I also tried before that via email and phone. I know it's just $245 but it's the principle that counts. I'm unemployed at the moment so I'm not the one having to take days off work or anything

      • Chandler on 18/06/2020 - 10:16
        +10

        I know it's just $245 but it's the principle that counts

        Karen it is then.

        Sorry buddy but I'm inclined to go with pagaxs on this.

        1. Inspector won't pass car because X, suspect Y is faulty
        2. OP gets Y fixed elsewhere, returns to Inspector
        3. Inspector won't pass car because X
        4. OP goes to QCAT because they paid to fix Y and that didn't fix X

        As pegaxs said, if you'd just let the inspector fix the suspected fault, they would have found the actual fault and not charged you for the bearing.

        Furthermore, again as pegaxs said you should have asked your mechanic to find and fix the fault, not just replace a part that was the suspected fault.

        You have some case in my opinion, but I doubt you'll get the resolution you're after.

        (IMO) You'll need to prove it was unreasonable for the inspector to suspect the bearing was the fault, as that's the only thing they've done wrong here.

        • knk on 18/06/2020 - 13:13
          +3

          " you should have asked your mechanic to find and fix the fault, not just replace a part that was the suspected fault."

          This, exactly this.

          You're not an expert @swaffi, neither of your mechanics has done anything wrong. The original mechanic who failed the inspection is also not a wizard or car whisperer, they can't diagnose every fault immediately and sometimes further inspection is required; you didn't give them the chance.

      • Brick Tamland on 18/06/2020 - 14:29
        +4

        I know it's just $245 but it's the principle that counts.

        aargh this gives me horrible flashbacks to my retail days. In my experience, anytime this little pearler is trotted out you know that any reasonable attempt to fix something will never be good enough.

      • taker on 19/06/2020 - 21:48

        If you were employed, cld afford a lawyer and actually paid one. It would cost you more than the claim. Then any good lawyer wld tell you not to pursue, especially over principle.

        Spend time on value eg find work. Your perspective is very much a result of spending way to much energy on saving a penny, and not enough on the value of your time and money.

        Opportunity cost. Study this in your spare time. VALUE.

        Seriously not having a go at you. Consider the big picture. Can I ask, what car do you drive, how many kms, what year model?

  • RockyRaccoon on 16/06/2020 - 11:15
    +5

    Sorry a newbie who just joins a bargain site and wants advice on how to sue for being given wrong advice… Sure! - do you want my bank details now?

    What is it that attracts these people here, never to be seen again

  • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 11:24
    +8

    Ask them to point you to the part of the road worthy inspection that says "grinding/howling" is a road worthy item.
    Point to ACL and say that the service they provided was inadequate and/or misleading.
    Tell them that you feel that the inspector was trying to drum up work, which is a conflict of interests.

    I am not even sure at this point WHY you are going to QCAT. Is there a much larger thing going on here? Are you out thousands of dollar or just a pissed off customer taking out some petty revenge?

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 12:16
      +3

      You've got an excellent point regarding "grinding/howling" is a road worthy item". I didn't think about that. What is ACL? the other thing you mentioned…I'm just sick of being ripped off by mechanics that give you dodgy advice or charge you like wounded bulls. As I said to spackface, it's the principle that counts and I'm unemployed so it's not as if I have to take days off work or anything, no skin off my nose

      • pjetson on 16/06/2020 - 13:44
        +6

        spackface

        Hard not to snicker at that :-)

        • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 14:10
          +4

          spackbace, aka: spackface, aka: sassmouth…

          • pjetson on 16/06/2020 - 16:53

            @pegaxs: Oops, I meant to write "snigger". Maybe I need a snickers.

          • spackbace on 16/06/2020 - 18:02
            +3

            @pegaxs: Lol do you have that bookmarked?

      • ozbjunkie on 17/06/2020 - 16:09

        The roadworthy item point, along with focusing on the first mechanics saying the problem IS the bearing, vs MIGHT BE the bearing.

        What does the advice say, was it a definite regarding the bearing, or just raised as a possibility. If it was phrased in a way that is definitive, then that proved incorrect. That would be my argument.

      • vengeance88 on 17/06/2020 - 23:58

        ACL= Australian Consumer Law

    • onetwothreefour on 16/06/2020 - 16:11
      +3

      He's unemployed, gotta find ways to fill the days somehow.

  • Baysew on 16/06/2020 - 11:33
    +1

    It's Mabo, it's the vibe, it's the failure under Australian consumer law to provide services with "due care and skill".

    Read this VCAT backs lawyer who spied errors on outsourced resumé for ASIO job

    The bottom line is that they only got part of the fee paid back as the vendor was "entitled to some recompense for the services it has provided to her." So even if they stuff up in major way, they are still entitled for services rendered.

    What does $245 represent?

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 13:58

      $135 for the part and $110 for having it installed

      • NuclearWessels on 16/06/2020 - 14:15

        Seems like a lot of effort over $245

        • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:37

          No hard work at all. Why do you say that?

          • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 12:24
            +3

            @swaffi: Good on to you OP. I reckon these sloppy businesses often rely on the fact that people can’t/won’t be bothered pursuing these things.

            One could easily argue the other side of the coin. Why is roadworthy mechanic not just coughing up the $? Why are they “karenning” it and how is it worth their time/ money to fight over the $245 you’ve asked for?

            Best of luck. Worst case scenario you’ve got them to take a day off work to argue their case. Best case you also get you $ back. God speed.

            • Euphemistic on 18/06/2020 - 13:46
              +2

              @parsimonious one:

              One could easily argue the other side of the coin. Why is roadworthy mechanic not just coughing up the $? Why are they “karenning” it and how is it worth their time/ money to fight over the $245 you’ve asked for?

              Of course they should fight it. They didn’t do the work, they didn’t order the work. For all they knew the OP did the work DIY.

              Would you be happy as a business owner if someone came to you trying to get $245 out of you for doing what you had been asked?

              • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 15:02
                +1

                @Euphemistic: I guess this is why mediation exists, to sort out these differences of opinion.

                From what the OP has said:

                1) RWC mechanic advised OP that car wasn't road worthy because the front left wheel bearing was faulty

                2) OP had supposedly problematic part replaced as per RWC mechanics advice

                3) RWC mechanic then states it wasn't the wheel bearing after all.

                I am suprised at how many people seem to think the OP should just shrug his shoulders and walk away, paying $85 to the RWC mechanic for this experience.

                • Euphemistic on 18/06/2020 - 17:05

                  @parsimonious one: 1) the RWC mechanic might have got it wrong. They may have meant right side, they may have found an issue with the left, by not noticed the right was also a problem.

                  2) The OP bought the part and has it installed. The mechanic may not have been told that it was for RWC or to make sure there was no noise apparent after the work.

                  3) the RWC did not say it wasn’t the wheel bearing, just hat the vehicle can’t pass the inspection.

                  The OP is chasing the $245 for work ordered by the OP.

                  As much as the OP is blaming the RWC mechanic, there could be blame all around. There is no comment as to what remedy there was to getting a RWC either.

                  • parsimonious one on 18/06/2020 - 19:39

                    @Euphemistic: I appreciate your thoughts on this and you raise an interesting point.

                    If the RWC mechanic did say it was the right, and the OP had the right side part replaced, then took the car back only to be told that was an error and it should have been the left side should the RWC should take responsibility for that incorrect advice?

                    I am curious as to how obviously bad the advice needs to be before the RWC mechanic would need to take some responsibility for the advice they give

  • whooah1979 on 16/06/2020 - 11:43
    +1

    Op, I don’t get your post. Your vehicle failed the safety test not once but twice. Now you want to sue them for making sure that your vehicle is safe enough to be used on public roads?

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:41
      +2

      This is not a safety issue. This is not the point. The point is that they gave me a faulty diagnosis that I needed to replace a part that didn't need replacing in order to get it passed. The other chap may have had a point as well. They may have just wanted to drum up more business assuming that I would take it back to them and charge me more (for the part and the labour) They so charge like wounded bulls

      • whooah1979 on 16/06/2020 - 16:24
        +3

        The first workshop gave you their opinion. If you have an issue then it is with the second workshop. They took your money without checking to see if it was faulty.

        • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 21:38
          +3

          100% this. My issue would be with the 2nd workshop that just blindly replaced parts. I mean, hell, I like revenue as much as the next guy, but they should have at least asked "why" this part needed to be changed.

          • abb on 18/06/2020 - 11:40
            +2

            @pegaxs: It sounds like OP bought the part before talking to mechanic #2.
            If a customer comes in saying "My front left wheel bearing is messed up. Here is a new one, can you fit it please?", I dare say 98% of the time the answer is "sure thing". If it turns out it was actually a different fault, that's hardly the wheel bearing installer's mistake - they were asked to install a part, not diagnose a problem.

            OP's mistake IMO was accepting mech #1's diagnosis and buying the part straight away despite not planning to use them for the repair. They could have gotten a second opinion from their favoured mechanic for $50 (or free if you have a generous shop / good relationship).

            • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 13:41

              @abb:

              that's hardly the wheel bearing installer's mistake - they were asked to install a part, not diagnose a problem.

              But it's also not the RWC inspectors mistake. They are paid to check if a vehicle is roadworthy, not to diagnose the issues that they find. It's just their job to report what is unsafe, and it is then up to the owner to decide on a course of action.

              As I said above, I like revenue jobs as much as the next guy, and I would love for my customers to do nothing but bring me parts to fit to their cars, but when it is something like a wheel bearing, if I wasn't the one that diagnosed it, I always ask "why?". I believe a portion of the blame belongs to the mechanic that fitted it for not even asking why, but also believe they are not to blame, because they were just asked to fit a bearing, which they did.

              • Euphemistic on 18/06/2020 - 13:49
                +1

                @pegaxs:

                They are paid to check if a vehicle is roadworthy, not to diagnose the issues that they find.

                This, although you’d expect a reputable inspector to be able to point out obvious faults (tie rod end anyone?). We have no way of knowing wether the inspector said ‘it’s definitely the bearing’ or ‘it’s probably the bearing’. It’s quite likely the latter.

                • pegaxs on 18/06/2020 - 14:05

                  @Euphemistic: Oh, I am 100% certain it was the latter. OP would have asked why it failed, they would have said something about the scraping/howling noise. OP would have asked possible cause, and they would have said, "don't know, maybe the front left wheel bearing…"

                  Tie rod ends are a bit different, as they get under the vehicle and pry up on them for movement. If it moves, it needs to be replaced.

                  Now, OP's issue is more akin to if they drove the vehicle and heard a clunk and just reported the clunking without testing, that could be any number of things and said "It could be a tie rod end." It's not up to them to find what is causing the clunking, just to report the clunking so the owner can have it looked at and rectified.

                  If I am doing a roadworthy prep. inspection (I'm not licensed to do actual inspections), I don't diagnose stuff, I just get a list of what wont pass. If the tyres are bald, I don't diagnose why, I just report it. Lights not working, I don't diagnose why, I just report it. Windscreen cracked… you got it, I don't diagnose why, I just report it. It's then up to the owner just how far they want to chase these issues.

      • 82norm on 17/06/2020 - 12:56
        +2

        Take them to QCAT. You’ve got nothing to lose. Dodgy mechanics are everywhere and need to be brought into account.
        Good luck.

  • dcep on 16/06/2020 - 12:01

    Your regular mechanic need to write a statement that he has replaced the bearing and it's not/no longer faulty.

  • Porker on 16/06/2020 - 12:02
    +9

    Sounds like you're just taking someone to QCAT because you didn't like their service.

    The reason why the response from the mediator is that you need an argument of law or point of law is (in part) to prevent you simply enacting litigation against someone out of emotion, but also the mediator is bound to determine if there has been a breach of law. He's not going to go find what law was breached which is why you, as the applicant, need to demonstrate / provide the information and argument.

    If the mechanic made a mistake in his diagnosis (to put it simply), what law has he broken? Doesn't sound like he's broken any other than unable to work on your car correctly. Plus, you paid for the new part and have it on the car, so there's been no misconduct or anything like that (at face value).

    I have a vexatious neighbour that took me to VCAT and other tribunals no less than 10 times over the years. Similar response was given to him by the mediator in terms of 'point of law'. My neighbour finally found the point of law for his issue being 'The Water Act' and relevant clause. However, just stating the point of law is not enough, you'll need to demonstrate how the mechanic is in breach or deliberately acted to breach it. Did any of the mechanics deliberately and intentionally deceive you?

    Keep in mind, you're trying to get back $245, but you'll likely need to pay an application/submission fee to QCAT and costs generally won't be awarded if you're self-representing. Eg. you may lose a day from work to go to the hearing and that loss of income / leave won't be reimbursed.

    In short, you may lose more than you ever gain from the tribunal (assuming you win).

    Take this as a learning lesson maybe to get a second opinion or to better understand how cars work etc.

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:09

      I'm not the one missing out on work etc. They will be. I'm unemployed. I didn't have to pay for an application fee either. It's via the phone so I don't even have to travel. I just spoke to a free legal advice lawyer about an hour ago. I can go them for a breach of contract. They did not properly provide me with the service. They misdiagnosed the problem and compelled me to get and install a part that I did not need. I say compelled because my car needed to pass the safety inspection and that was what I had to get replaced according to them. Now, the new part was professionally installed by my regular mechanic. I did not use them because they charge way too much. I took it to them originally because it was convenient for me to do so, after all, they are supposed to charge the same here in QLD which they explained to me when I first asked them. I wish I hadn't now

      • Porker on 16/06/2020 - 15:16
        +5

        Have I understood this correctly, that the first mechanic told you to replace a part for certification, you bought that part and then had a different mechanic install it? You then brought it back to the first mechanic for certification and it still didn't pass.

        While I considered to mention breach of contract in my earlier post, I did not because some aspects were unclear. If my above summation is accurate, who exactly do you believe you had a verbal or other contract with?

        I assume maybe you're thinking you had a contract with the first mechanic, but there was no acceptance (legal requirement) that I can detect that occurred to formalise any contract. Again, the details aren't clear but it could easily have been advice they were providing as it was just an enquiry (or quote) by you to them. It's no different to you having asked OZB what they think the cause of the sound is, and a mechanic here responding on what they thought it was - you can't then sue them because you lost money following their advice.

        You mention 'compel', but did the first mechanic say that it and it alone was the cause for the issue and when fixed, it would pass certification? If yes, next thing is, can you prove this? Did they provide a report or was it just word of mouth?

        You'll still need to demonstrate the the tribunal that a contract existed (verbal or otherwise) and what law was broken (eg. Australian Contract Law). With the minimal information/interaction provided, I'm not sure one existed beyond an opinion by the first mechanic. Eg. you never paid or agreed to pay the first mechanic for work that they did or didn't do to be in breach of the agreement.

        I don't know what your financial position is to say that $245 is significant/insignificant, but assuming you're going to fight this, it sounds like you have a lot of work ahead of you with (what appears to be) minimal to no understanding of the legal processes. Free Legal Aide is unlikely to represent you as they will say that you need to engage your own legal advisor.

        The advice from OZB will, I expect, also be to seek legal aid as there's a lot of elements to your situation that ALL need to be stated and then the strategy can be devised by the solicitor.

        (I studied Law but never practiced as I changed career in the end).

        EDIT: Having just written all of the above, did you pay the first mechanic for their assessment? You mentioned not wanting to pay $85 'again'. It's different if they were paid for their assessment and you got a report - even then, the wording of that document will be very important too. It may be that the work must be performed by them to qualify for certification or that if their diagnosis is incorrect, that that will be responsible for fixing it within a certain pre-determined price range etc etc. In short, you could have breached an agreement/condition of the contract by having someone else perform the work.

        Just too many bits of info missing. I'm not asking you present it all here, but just be sure you present fact rather than opinion when it comes to legal issues, plus at QCAT.

  • bloom on 16/06/2020 - 12:28
    +2

    Why doesn’t your regular mechanic do the safety inspection? People will be always be more critical of others work

    Also did your regular mechanic not diagnose the sound before replacing the bearing?

    • whooah1979 on 16/06/2020 - 12:30

      They don’t want to put their name on the report just in case the left wheel falls off.

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:12

      As I just mentioned to "Porker". I first took it to ((profanity) it, I'll just say it) "Ultra Tune" for convenience sake only. I regret that now. Later on that day though, I got it passed by my regular mechanic. The one that installed it for me

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:17

      No, he didn't diagnose the sound. Not initially anyway. I asked him to install it for me because of what "Ultra Tune" said that I needed it done to pass the inspection. Later on that day, he took it for a drive (with me in it) and said that he knew the sound they (ultra tune) were going on about and that it's nothing to worry about and that it's not a front wheel bearing issue. He said that it's probably coming from the gearbox. He also did another check when we got back to his garage and said that there was no issue. This was before he did a roadworthy inspection

  • hikaru78 on 16/06/2020 - 12:34
    +4

    Was the bearing faulty?

    Op mechanic could have attested to that.

    Is it possible that there was more than on fault and that the second fault didn't become noticeable till after the bearing was fixed?

    If op is claim claiming that the bearing wasn't faulty why would op mechanic replace it. Takes about 3 seconds to check for a noisy bearing when its on the hoist?

    cars are complicated things and often have multiple problems that may not be apparent until you start fixing other things

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:29

      Yeah, I got asked about whether my mechanic had spotted that and I thought about that as well. I'm not sure if that is the issue though. What I mean is that…if I ask a tradesman or whoever to replace something for me and they know they are going to get paid for a service, are they duty-bound to tell you while they are doing it or even after that the part didn't need to be replaced? What if he'd said that it didn't need to be as he was doing it? I guess that opens up a new can of worms with Ultra Tune. The issue would still be there I guess.

      • Collies80 on 16/06/2020 - 14:40

        Your mechanic should have checked it before replacing the bearings. As its easier to check than actually replace the part. Because if he just replaced the bearing and the problem was still there you would expect him to keep going until he found the issue.

        Ultratune told you what they thought the issue was, had they started doing the work and found it to not be the issue then they would have had to keep looking until they stopped the noise that they could hear. If you took it to another mechanic for a second opinion and they said it was not the wheel bearing but was actually a gearbox and they then fixed that then Ultratune would still not be in the wrong. If ultra tune changed your wheel bearing and told you it was fixed but the noise was still there then you would have an issue with the service they provided as they didn't fix or resolve the actual issue

        • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:50

          I asked my mechanic to replace a part. Is he duty-bound to find out more than I asked? I don't think so. The point is that he did what I asked him to do and that's fine. The issue is with Ultra Tune not with my mechanic. One has to automatically assume that my mechanic is useless or something. He and his team are more professional than Ultra Tune is any day of the week. I've been told this by other mechanics in the area as well. Same theme. He backed it up by passing the safety inspection that same day. He put his reputation on the line

          • Collies80 on 16/06/2020 - 14:57
            +2

            @swaffi: If he passed your safety inspection with the noise why did he replace the bearing in the first place if he knew all you wanted was to get a safety inspection passed?

            its the same logic of the electrician coming to fix a faulty wall socket, if he pulls the socket off and doesn't see anything wrong why would he change it if he knows its not going to actually fix the issue? Ultratune could have started doing the work and upon a more thorough inspection realised the howling was not caused by the wheel bearing and may not have even replaced it then, but you don't know that because you didn't get the work done through them. You haven't said whether your wheel bearing was actually showing signs of wear that meant it would've been making a noise to show its faulty. If your mechanic knows your car because you go there regularly he should've been able to tell you if a wheel bearing change was reasonably expected considering your cars mileage and condition. A new garage is always going to be more cautious of just passing a new customer as they don't know your vehicle, meaning that your mechanic may be really knowledgeable on your cars condition and felt comfortable knowing it was a gearbox issue non threatening to the cars immediate performance. But a new garage may be more hesitant to inspect it further as to be sure before they sign their name on the inspection check

            • Collies80 on 16/06/2020 - 15:04
              +1

              @Collies80: Technically speaking your mechanic hasn't put his reputation on the line, because as far as the paper trail goes. Car failed for faulty wheel bearing, he replaced bearing and passed it. He hasn't actually diagnosed the issue, he said its the gearbox but until he can make the noise go away you can't be 100% certain of the issue

              • fruxo on 18/06/2020 - 10:17
                +3

                @Collies80: Quick, go to a third mechanic to replace the gearbox, then sue second mechanic at the same time if the noise is still there.

                This thread makes little sense to me.

          • brendanm on 17/06/2020 - 10:48
            +1

            @swaffi: If they were professional, they would have checked that the beating had an issue before replacing it.

  • brendanm on 16/06/2020 - 13:26
    +1

    What was the actual issue?

    • swaffi on 16/06/2020 - 14:32

      Well my mechanic later after taking it for a test drive said that the supposed noise was probably coming from the gearbox but he said that it was nothing to worry about (I didn't think there was an issue either) and that (this supposed noise) was definitely not a bearing issue

      • brendanm on 16/06/2020 - 15:02
        +8

        So he didn't check the bearing before replacing it?

        You will lose at xcat, as the mechanic who did the rwc didn't do the work. If you had agreed for them to do it, and it had been a misdiagnosis, that would be on them. The fact that you purchased the part, and your mechanic fitted it, means they will have no responsibility for it. Your mechanic should have checked the bearing before blindly replacing it.

        • Porker on 16/06/2020 - 15:18
          +1

          That's assuming his mechanic knew the reason why he was doing the work.

          OP could have simply instructed mechanic to replace this part, and here's the money/part to do so.

          • brendanm on 16/06/2020 - 16:43
            +2

            @Porker: If someone asks you randomly to do a wheel bearing, you check it, because the next thing is they blame you when it's not fixed.

        • the Unforgiven on 17/06/2020 - 23:39
          +2

          exactly
          I remember someone trying this when I was working as a mechanic in the 70's

          A few years back I had a m8 bring his camper-van to my place on the weekend and I said I would do the rings & bearings on the 202 Holden motor; I told him to be there early Saturday morning, he came lunchtime.
          Nevermind. By that night I had the bores honed & the pistons cleaned and new rings fitted & in the bores & big end bearings & sump on that thing b4 beer time. Next day I lapped in the valves and finished putting the sucker back together so he could drive home.

          A few months later, he was crossing an intersection and the front end fell apart or something, but he blamed me for it. Even thou the arsewipe took it to the servo to get it up on the hoist to have some sort of work done on it.

          But it was my fault the front end failed. Moral of the story, mechanic can't win; that is why we swear worse than sailors (true, we make them blush) There was a sailor with a steering wheel down his daks and he walked into a bar & goes to the counter to order a beer. The barman looks down & says do you know you have a steering wheel down your daks? And the sailor goes, " aye, and it's driving me nuts"

          • Herbse on 18/06/2020 - 00:27
            +5

            @the Unforgiven: I don't envy mechanic's jobs one bit.

            Diagnosing is a bitch with the thousands of different systems and parts, then if you take on the job and it's wrong, you have to suck up the costs. And when any little thing goes wrong with anything on the car, it's automatically your fault and you have to somehow explain it in terms the customer can understand that it's not. And after all that, you get taken to court by people like the OP.

            If anyone is wondering why mechanics charge so much for their work, it's because they have to charge extra as insurance to cover themselves for instances like this where other customers drag them into things that aren't their fault but they most likely have to deal with it or get sued or negative feedback online.

            • the Unforgiven on 18/06/2020 - 16:52
              +1

              @Herbse: Good manics, I mean mechanics, usually can diagnose a fault on a car, most of the time
              Sometimes, it is a head scratcher. That is why we need the owner of the car to tell us EVERYTHING,
              even coming for a test drive if need be.
              A wheel bearing will make more or less noise when you go around the right or left corners as it will travel less than the other wheel,
              that is it will turn faster or slower
              I never heard of a wheel bearing grind b4. If it is that bad, just jacking up the car & turning the wheel or moving the tyre should produce some movement or noise

              I had my 2005 Honda die going up a hill 2 years ago
              I put my $60 'toy' into the OCD-II port of the car & it spat out a code & I checked on my new mobile,
              which also happened to be my first; they never bothered to put a tower in the bush where I lived for 2 decades until I sold the property.
              It said the camshaft sensor was stuffed & it is a prick to do on a east-west motor. So I thought I would let the local grease monkey do it as he was kind enough to come out & give me the short tow back into town; it would have cost too much to tow my car back home in the bush.

              He rang a few days later to say his $6000 machine said it was the crankshaft sensor. I said my $60 'toy' said it was the camshaft sensor. And since I am the one paying for the job, I told him to do the camshaft sensor first. It was also the cheapest to do (I am on a disability pension and have been for decades).

              He was busy so he couldn't do it for a couple of weeks. All the while I was at home sitting on the porch drinking my 'shine' and wondering if my diagnosis was correct or was his $6000 machine going to be correct. I just hitch-hiked into town when I had my doctors appointments and do some shopping b4 hitching back again. The second time, I stopped at the garage as he was working on the car & he was nearly finished.

              Time came for him to start the thing. Would it start? Would it stay running? I was going to do a 2 parter here, but I thought I better not :) The car started - woo hoo. But he wanted me to take it for a road test just to see if she will stall. I headed off towards Bombala, the opposite way from my place. I went up the road 10 minutes & stopped at the cemetery, while I let the car idle while I walked around the dead centre of town, the I went back. A perfect roadtest. The car never gave not even one hiccup - perfect. I did not go and brag to him about his $6000 machine, I thought I better not, he may have to do more work on my car another day

              Moral of the story - you can have all the expensive equipment at your disposal, but sometimes, car just don't want to be diagnosed correctly

      • gromit on 18/06/2020 - 08:09
        +1

        A grinding and howling sound really does sound like it is something to worry about, or to at least identify.

  • Love a bargain on 16/06/2020 - 15:14

    Does professional negligence apply to car mechanics? If so, one of the arguments could be that they failed to properly diagnose something that an average competent Australian car mechanic should be able to do in the same circumstance.

    • pegaxs on 16/06/2020 - 21:41
      +3

      They did a RWC check, not diagnose a fault with a car. It's only up to the inspector to say "There is a noise in the front, it may be a wheel bearing. Get it checked or fixed and we'll pass it when it's rectified"

      It's not the inspectors job to diagnose every single thing wrong on a RWC check. It's just their job to note that something is wrong, not what caused it.

      • Dumax on 17/06/2020 - 10:55

        If a mechanic doesn't identify the cause of the noise then how do they know that it presents safety issue?

        If they are unable to accurately identify safety issues then how can they reliably determine that a car is in-fact "safe"? The lack of noises/obvious defects are not necessarily a sign that there are no defects.

        • Euphemistic on 17/06/2020 - 11:19
          +2

          A good mechanic should be able to identify if a noise is a problem or not, then go and do a further assessment. It’s not hard to check a wheel bearing with the wheel off the ground.

          True, not all faults make noises. It depends on the thoroughness of the inspection as to what problems are picked up.

        • pegaxs on 17/06/2020 - 11:56

          It's not the job of the RWC tester to diagnose issues, just to notify the owner that there is an issue. It is then up to the owner to determine what they are going to do to have the issue rectified.

          And I can see you are not a mechanic. No issues is definitive. I cant just look up a magical table of noises and say that; "Noise A = Problem 3"…

          A lot of mechanical work is "suck it and see". Try something that you "think" it might be. If it works, good, problem fixed. If it doesn't, move onto the next step. Working on vehicles is more like following a flow chart.

          So no, the person who tested the vehicle isn't at all responsible to diagnose ANY issue with a vehicle during a RWC inspection. They are only there to note anything that isn't in a roadworthy condition and report it.

          If you want them to diagnose it, that costs extra.

        • whooah1979 on 17/06/2020 - 12:15
          +1

          The workshop had every right to ask the customer to have the noisy wheel checked before they accept liability for issuing an RWC.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join