HEALING INFORMATION / COPY OF RECENT EMAIL:

----------------------------------------------------------------

I expect you've seen it - the video "The Last Days of Health
Freedom."

They keep saying people must stand up and start screaming about this,
etc.

But it's not as simple as that.

By 1990 it was clear that the only way to deal with this is the
citizens arrest approach, then to explain to the courts and the media
the basis for the citizens arrests. But that proposal was met with
universal silence in 1990 and ever since.

When an entire species refuses to give any *effective* opposition to
collective self-genocide / mass suicide of the entire human species -
which also means the human species effectively is refusing to nurture
and protect its young....  If we are honest, if we are describing the
real world and our real condition, then we have to call this
collective mental illness.

Next question is:
where does this mass insanity come from.

And the simple answer is found in "Mankind in Amnesia" by Immanuel
Velikovsky, which briefly states that we collectively are displaying
the classic symptom of trauma-induced amnesia, which is to
'unconsciously' strive to recreate and relive the forgotten trauma
that is overshadowing our lives, meaning the forgotten global
catastrophes and survivalist emergencies which drove our ancestors
insane in the first place. We are now very close to reliving those
survivalist emergencies, by our own determination to destroy
ourselves.

There's nothing difficult about understanding this, by just joining
the pieces together.

And it has to be all or nothing - the corruption of the mother-infant
relationship eleven thousand years ago is one of the major facts of
our lives, and it seems nobody is aware of it, because we don't
remember our infancy, and, bizarrely, everybody is determined not to
remember it, although it's our most formative experience, the
blueprint for the rest of our lives and the nature of our
civilisation! Then we have three basic societal arrangements which
automatically generate pain, and which nobody will challenge and
demand to be abolished as soon as feasible.... All this is simple, yet
nobody will say it as the total package, but only some of it, and
those bits of it that they do mention are separated from the rest of
the picture in closed off compartments, as in this video, which is a
valuable step in the right direction, but - kept in its compartment -
is not taking us anywhere.

It can't be turned around. But at least some people could "come out"
by declaring themselves sane before the end comes - not just in closed-
off compartments, as in this video, but the whole package of Forbidden
Subjects with the pieces joined together.....
http://www.therealfoodchannel.com/page/24.html

A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007 and
sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to arrange
a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads. She
has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the pads,
which were replaced.

This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the car
has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
this 5 year rule.

The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even though
they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even though
they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as they
are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
even though they service cars of different makes.

What legal rights do we have in this regards?

Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?

Regards
Brum1969

brum1969 wrote:

> A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007 and
> sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to arrange
> a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
> that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads. She
> has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the pads,
> which were replaced.
> 
> This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
> should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
> replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the car
> has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
> this 5 year rule.
> 
> The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even though
> they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
> replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even though
> they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as they
> are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
> even though they service cars of different makes.
> 
> What legal rights do we have in this regards?
> 
> Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
> serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
> 
> Regards
> Brum1969

The garage has no liablity to you , its up to your wife to make sure the regular
serviceing and maintainance is carried out as per the owners manual .

It is only a curtusy that the garage rang you to arrange a service (and the fact the
main dealers are all trying to drum up business).

Next time tell your wife to read the instructions that come with the car

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:01:30 +0100, "brum1969"  wrote:


>The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, 

They don't have to squirm at all.

>even though
>they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
>replaced before December 2008. 

What service did you ask them to carry out?  If it was a 25,000 mile
one that is what they did.

>They are now trying to say that even though
>they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. 

They are correct.  It is your car,  your manual and your
responsibility to read it.  If you don't the consequences are yours.

>Also, as they
>are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
>even though they service cars of different makes.
>
>What legal rights do we have in this regards?

None really.  One of the common failures in Scenics is the water pump
which causes the timing belt to fail.  Even if the belt failed on its
own it is your responsibility to tell a garage what servicing you want
them to carry out.  If you told them to do a 25,000 service then
that's what they will have done. 

>Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
>serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?

No.

Peter,

My wife was contacted by the Ford dealer who stated that the car was due for 
a service. She took the car in but was NOT told that the belt needed to be 
changed within 2 months. Their explanation is that they are a Ford dealer so 
lack specific knowledge of Renaults. In my opinion, they should not be 
selling or servicing cars they lack proper knowledge of.

So in your opinion, its reasonable to expect someone to know that the timing 
belt on their car needs to be replaced every 5 years?

As a bloke who knows a bit more about cars than my wife, I didn't know this 
so there is NO WAY that she would. Also, if it was such a obvious fact 
Peter, then we would have known about it.

So thanks for your advise, but I think you're missing the jest of what I was 
asking.

Regards
Brum1969

"Peter Parry"  wrote in message 
news:08fr45ddlqntrfc0ruo4kksrg6ac8sgrc5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 07:01:30 +0100, "brum1969"  wrote:
>
>
>>The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability,
>
> They don't have to squirm at all.
>
>>even though
>>they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
>>replaced before December 2008.
>
> What service did you ask them to carry out?  If it was a 25,000 mile
> one that is what they did.
>
>>They are now trying to say that even though
>>they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual.
>
> They are correct.  It is your car,  your manual and your
> responsibility to read it.  If you don't the consequences are yours.
>
>>Also, as they
>>are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
>>even though they service cars of different makes.
>>
>>What legal rights do we have in this regards?
>
> None really.  One of the common failures in Scenics is the water pump
> which causes the timing belt to fail.  Even if the belt failed on its
> own it is your responsibility to tell a garage what servicing you want
> them to carry out.  If you told them to do a 25,000 service then
> that's what they will have done.
>
>>Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
>>serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
>
> No.
>

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:55:56 +0100, "brum1969"  wrote:


>My wife was contacted by the Ford dealer who stated that the car was due for 
>a service. 

It was, they happen every 12 months usually.

>She took the car in but was NOT told that the belt needed to be 
>changed within 2 months. 

So?

>Their explanation is that they are a Ford dealer so 
>lack specific knowledge of Renaults. In my opinion, they should not be 
>selling or servicing cars they lack proper knowledge of.

You are expecting far too much.  They sent out a routine reminder a
routine  service was due.  All you had to do was read the instruction
book which came with your vehicle.  Knowing its age and mileage you
could have asked for the correct service to be carried out.  You
didn't.

>So in your opinion, its reasonable to expect someone to know that the timing 
>belt on their car needs to be replaced every 5 years?

It is reasonable to expect the owner to read the manual for their
vehicle to find our what was due. 

>As a bloke who knows a bit more about cars than my wife, I didn't know this 
>so there is NO WAY that she would. 

Yes there is - it's called read the book.

>Also, if it was such a obvious fact  Peter, then we would have known about it.

It is written in the book you had.  You didn't bother reading it.

>So thanks for your advise, but I think you're missing the jest of what I was 
>asking.

I know exactly what you are asking.  Can you blame the garage for a
very expensive failure?  The answer is no you can't.

Peter,

I raised a question on this forum for advice, not to enter into an argument 
with you!

You obviously have a problem with "common sense" and what is reasonably 
expected of any car owner. You lack any form of empathy too as you assume 
that everyone should sit and read the multitude of pages of a manual, with 
regards to servicing it.

No one that I've spoken to knew about the fact that timing belts have a 
shelf life of some sort. Everybody I know goes by the mileage of the car, 
not by a time limit. I've now found out that Ford cars have a 10 year limit 
on them, for example.

So to conclude, please find some other victim for your sarcasm as its not 
welcome here!!

Just stating that she should have
"Peter Parry"  wrote in message 
news:aqss45hm3btjfjvmh54ap8ef3j13oa8ag7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 20:55:56 +0100, "brum1969"  wrote:
>
>
>>My wife was contacted by the Ford dealer who stated that the car was due 
>>for
>>a service.
>
> It was, they happen every 12 months usually.
>
>>She took the car in but was NOT told that the belt needed to be
>>changed within 2 months.
>
> So?
>
>>Their explanation is that they are a Ford dealer so
>>lack specific knowledge of Renaults. In my opinion, they should not be
>>selling or servicing cars they lack proper knowledge of.
>
> You are expecting far too much.  They sent out a routine reminder a
> routine  service was due.  All you had to do was read the instruction
> book which came with your vehicle.  Knowing its age and mileage you
> could have asked for the correct service to be carried out.  You
> didn't.
>
>>So in your opinion, its reasonable to expect someone to know that the 
>>timing
>>belt on their car needs to be replaced every 5 years?
>
> It is reasonable to expect the owner to read the manual for their
> vehicle to find our what was due.
>
>>As a bloke who knows a bit more about cars than my wife, I didn't know 
>>this
>>so there is NO WAY that she would.
>
> Yes there is - it's called read the book.
>
>>Also, if it was such a obvious fact  Peter, then we would have known about 
>>it.
>
> It is written in the book you had.  You didn't bother reading it.
>
>>So thanks for your advise, but I think you're missing the jest of what I 
>>was
>>asking.
>
> I know exactly what you are asking.  Can you blame the garage for a
> very expensive failure?  The answer is no you can't.
>

Steve,

You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my 
wife's predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and 
suggest you keep them to yourself next time!


"steve robinson"  wrote in message 
news:xn0gc7pxmip9s000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> brum1969 wrote:
>
>> A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007 
>> and
>> sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to 
>> arrange
>> a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
>> that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads. 
>> She
>> has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the 
>> pads,
>> which were replaced.
>>
>> This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
>> should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
>> replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the 
>> car
>> has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
>> this 5 year rule.
>>
>> The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even 
>> though
>> they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
>> replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even 
>> though
>> they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as 
>> they
>> are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule 
>> either -
>> even though they service cars of different makes.
>>
>> What legal rights do we have in this regards?
>>
>> Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
>> serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
>>
>> Regards
>> Brum1969
>
> The garage has no liablity to you , its up to your wife to make sure the 
> regular
> serviceing and maintainance is carried out as per the owners manual .
>
> It is only a curtusy that the garage rang you to arrange a service (and 
> the fact the
> main dealers are all trying to drum up business).
>
> Next time tell your wife to read the instructions that come with the car

brum1969 wrote:

> Steve,
> 
> You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my wife's
> predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and suggest you keep
> them to yourself next time!
> 
> 
> "steve robinson"  wrote in message
> news:xn0gc7pxmip9s000@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > brum1969 wrote:
> > 
> > > A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007  and
> > > sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to  arrange
> > > a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
> > > that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads.  She
> > > has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the  pads,
> > > which were replaced.
> > > 
> > > This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
> > > should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
> > > replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the  car
> > > has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
> > > this 5 year rule.
> > > 
> > > The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even  though
> > > they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
> > > replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even  though
> > > they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as  they
> > > are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule  either -
> > > even though they service cars of different makes.
> > > 
> > > What legal rights do we have in this regards?
> > > 
> > > Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
> > > serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Brum1969
> > 
> > The garage has no liablity to you , its up to your wife to make sure the  regular
> > serviceing and maintainance is carried out as per the owners manual .
> > 
> > It is only a curtusy that the garage rang you to arrange a service (and  the
> > fact the main dealers are all trying to drum up business).
> > 
> > Next time tell your wife to read the instructions that come with the car 

Oh diddums , its all that big bad garages fault

You stupid prat what part of she should have read the handbook  doesnt the stupid
cow understand , they supply you with these instruction manuals for a reason .

Your wifes only predicament is the fact she thinks that she is not responsible for
her cars maintainance and expects a reputable business to  fix her car at thier cost

fact 1)

The garage serviced your car as per your wifes request im assuming here she never
asked for the cam belt to be changed

fact 2) 

When the car was taken into the garage for a service the timing belt change was not
due

Fact 3) 

Its not the garages responsiblity to advise you of your future service needs thats
why they supply the drivers handbook and service manuals

fact 4)

The responsiblity for  the vehicle maintainance is your wifes if she cant be
bothered to read the service shedule in the handbook then shes a mug and your a
bigger mug for trying to defend her stupidity

fact 5)

Cam belt changes are not part of the standard service its an additonal item either
milage or age related and vehicle specific


If you feel aggrieved take it to court , but you will without dought lose and you
could end up being hit for the costs if the court feels that your actions are either
malicous or has no foundation in law


You have asked the same question on all the UK legal  groups and have recieved the
same response on all of them , you have no case

Its not about not understanding your wifes predicament  we all do , its a shame shes
the proud owner of a pile of scrap its a shame its going to cost her at least
£1000.00 to get it fixed  but its her problem not the garages

No  court will find in your favour just because your wife has a predicament .

Its a court of justice not of sentiment

If you dont like the answers you get here you could always talk to yourself , you
know then you will get the answer you want

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 18:40:43 +0100, "brum1969"  wrote:


>I raised a question on this forum for advice, 

You got advice, from a number of people here and on the other group.
Don't blame us if it isn't the advice you wanted to hear.

It's quite simple.  The problem is yours not the garages.  You didn't
read the manual for your own car and as a result didn't ask them to do
the appropriate work.  That is your problem, not theirs.

That may not be what you wanted to hear but it is a simple statement
of fact.

>You obviously have a problem with "common sense" and what is reasonably 
>expected of any car owner. 

No, that is a problem you have.  You want to be able to blame someone
else for a very expensive failure when the responsibility is yours. 

> You lack any form of empathy too as you assume 
>that everyone should sit and read the multitude of pages of a manual, with 
>regards to servicing it.

Empathy has sod all to do with it.  Its your car, your manual and your
responsibility to read it.  Thinking cuddly bunnies doesn't alter
that.

>No one that I've spoken to knew about the fact that timing belts have a 
>shelf life of some sort. 

Which is completely unimportant.  Your own manual states the need to
change the belt and when it should be done.  You didn't bother to read
it.

>Everybody I know goes by the mileage of the car, 

You mean just like the garage?  You asked them to do a 25,000 mile
service and they did.

>So to conclude, please find some other victim for your sarcasm as its not 
>welcome here!!

You don't own "here" .  Its quite simple.  You made a mistake, a very
expensive mistake.  You want to blame someone else for that mistake
because it was such an expensive one.  You can't.  Grow up.

brum1969 wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my 
> wife's predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and 
> suggest you keep them to yourself next time!

If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?

Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others 
in other newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them 
all as wrong and insult the responders.  You should be thankful that 
folk are prepared to consider your question and provide a response, even 
if that response is not the one you wanted.

I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A 
Ford *main dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife 
a car (not a Ford), then offered to service it at the appropriate time. 
  They did not however warn you that further work would be due shortly 
after the service.  The fact that the car was not a Ford is, to my mind, 
irrelevant.  As professionals, who were presumably trying to build a 
relationship, they should, and could, have found out the manufacturers 
recommendations.  I think they do owe you a duty of care but, in view of 
the other responses, cannot say that is a legal duty.  I would not use 
that garage again though and I would tell everyone what a crap place it was.

Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over 
their dealers.

If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try 
posting to uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post 
there, including the odd lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be 
any different though.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:

> brum1969 wrote:
> > Steve,
> > 
> > You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my  wife's
> > predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and  suggest you
> > keep them to yourself next time!
> 
> If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?
> 
> Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others in other
> newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them all as wrong and
> insult the responders.  You should be thankful that folk are prepared to consider
> your question and provide a response, even if that response is not the one you
> wanted.
> 
> I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A Ford *main
> dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife a car (not a Ford),
> then offered to service it at the appropriate time.   They did not however warn
> you that further work would be due shortly after the service.  The fact that the
> car was not a Ford is, to my mind, irrelevant.  As professionals, who were
> presumably trying to build a relationship, they should, and could, have found out
> the manufacturers recommendations.  I think they do owe you a duty of care but, in
> view of the other responses, cannot say that is a legal duty.  I would not use
> that garage again though and I would tell everyone what a crap place it was.
> 
> Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over their
> dealers.
> 
> If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try posting to
> uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post there, including the odd
> lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be any different though.

i think he has posted on the moderated group .

The only duty of care the garage owes is to provide the service as required by the
op and of course inform them of any work they consider nessassry to make the car
roadworthy .

Its not the garages responsiblity to advise them of future works required  altough
some will as a cortisy .

The op also needs to consider that the car is not a new vehicle but a second hand
one traded in by another customer , the garage will not know what work has been
prevously performed , the op also needs to consider that the particular model they
purchased has a waterpump which is run by the cam belt , if this pump fails it
damages the cam belt causing failure and expensive repairs , vauxhall have a similar
issue with thier waterpumps and recomend  they are changed every four years

This is a wear and tear issue , if the car was with its original owner its quite
possible renault may have offered some gesture of goodwill because of the low milage
as the car is no longer with the original owner renault wont give a fig and i dont
really blame them



To many people assume that tradesmen once they have visited your home or lifted the
bonnet on the car become responsible for all  future problems , they throw around
the duty of care argument and the your a professional argument as though its a magic
shield its not .


If i am asked to replace doors on a property its not my problem two years down the
line if they need trimming for a new carpet , or you find wet rot in the frame
unless you specifically tell me a new thicker carpet is to be installed or can you
check all the frames for wet rot , the same princibles applies to the serviceing of
cars

steve robinson wrote:
> Old Codger wrote:
> 
>> brum1969 wrote:
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my  wife's
>>> predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and  suggest you
>>> keep them to yourself next time!
>> If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?
>>
>> Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others in other
>> newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them all as wrong and
>> insult the responders.  You should be thankful that folk are prepared to consider
>> your question and provide a response, even if that response is not the one you
>> wanted.
>>
>> I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A Ford *main
>> dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife a car (not a Ford),
>> then offered to service it at the appropriate time.   They did not however warn
>> you that further work would be due shortly after the service.  The fact that the
>> car was not a Ford is, to my mind, irrelevant.  As professionals, who were
>> presumably trying to build a relationship, they should, and could, have found out
>> the manufacturers recommendations.  I think they do owe you a duty of care but, in
>> view of the other responses, cannot say that is a legal duty.  I would not use
>> that garage again though and I would tell everyone what a crap place it was.
>>
>> Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over their
>> dealers.
>>
>> If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try posting to
>> uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post there, including the odd
>> lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be any different though.
> 
> i think he has posted on the moderated group .

I hadn't seen anything at the time I posted above.

> The only duty of care the garage owes is to provide the service as required by the
> op and of course inform them of any work they consider nessassry to make the car
> roadworthy .
> 
> Its not the garages responsiblity to advise them of future works required  altough
> some will as a cortisy .
> 
> The op also needs to consider that the car is not a new vehicle but a second hand
> one traded in by another customer , the garage will not know what work has been
> prevously performed , the op also needs to consider that the particular model they
> purchased has a waterpump which is run by the cam belt , if this pump fails it
> damages the cam belt causing failure and expensive repairs , vauxhall have a similar
> issue with thier waterpumps and recomend  they are changed every four years
> 
> This is a wear and tear issue , if the car was with its original owner its quite
> possible renault may have offered some gesture of goodwill because of the low milage
> as the car is no longer with the original owner renault wont give a fig and i dont
> really blame them
> 
> To many people assume that tradesmen once they have visited your home or lifted the
> bonnet on the car become responsible for all  future problems , they throw around
> the duty of care argument and the your a professional argument as though its a magic
> shield its not .
> 
> If i am asked to replace doors on a property its not my problem two years down the
> line if they need trimming for a new carpet , or you find wet rot in the frame
> unless you specifically tell me a new thicker carpet is to be installed or can you
> check all the frames for wet rot , the same princibles applies to the serviceing of
> cars

Steve, as I said I do not know the legal position, and suspect you are 
correct, but I still think, in the particular circumstance of this case, 
the garage might have a duty of care.  It is not a simple case of 
someone just asking a garage to undertake a specified service, which 
appears to be the basis of your advice.

They are a main dealer for a mainstream brand.  They therefore hold 
themselves out to be professionals.  They sold the car so had the same 
opportunity as the buyer to see the records supplied with the car and 
should have the contacts to easily check for any variances in service 
requirements from their norm.  They contacted the buyer to arrange for 
the next due service, so again are holding themselves out to know what 
is required.  The OP does not state what service was carried out so 
presumably the garage did whatever they considered appropriate, which 
should have been whatever the manufacturer specified for that service. 
The manufacturers recommended interval for the timing belt change was up 
before the next routine service.  Under those circumstances I would 
expect that garage to warn me when offering to undertake the service 
that the timing belt should be changed within a few months and offering 
to undertake that at the same time as the service.

In the circumstances described by the OP I too would expect the garage 
to correct the problems for no more than the cost of changing the timing 
belt or preferably free to compensate for the inconvenience caused by 
the failure of the vehicle.

However, had I taken the car to any old garage and asked them to 
undertake a 25000 mile service I would not have expected them to 
necessarily know that the timing belt also needed changing because an 
unrelated time interval was about to expire.


-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger wrote:

> steve robinson wrote:
> > Old Codger wrote:
> > 
> > > brum1969 wrote:
> > > > Steve,
> > > > 
> > > > You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my
> > > > wife's predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and
> > > > suggest you keep them to yourself next time!
> > > If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?
> > > 
> > > Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others in
> > > other newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them all as
> > > wrong and insult the responders.  You should be thankful that folk are
> > > prepared to consider your question and provide a response, even if that
> > > response is not the one you wanted.
> > > 
> > > I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A Ford
> > > *main dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife a car (not
> > > a Ford), then offered to service it at the appropriate time.   They did not
> > > however warn you that further work would be due shortly after the service.
> > > The fact that the car was not a Ford is, to my mind, irrelevant.  As
> > > professionals, who were presumably trying to build a relationship, they
> > > should, and could, have found out the manufacturers recommendations.  I think
> > > they do owe you a duty of care but, in view of the other responses, cannot say
> > > that is a legal duty.  I would not use that garage again though and I would
> > > tell everyone what a crap place it was.
> > > 
> > > Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over their
> > > dealers.
> > > 
> > > If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try posting
> > > to uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post there, including
> > > the odd lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be any different though.
> > 
> > i think he has posted on the moderated group .
> 
> I hadn't seen anything at the time I posted above.
> 

I realised that , every one on the moderated group agreed the op had no case 


> > The only duty of care the garage owes is to provide the service as required by
> > the op and of course inform them of any work they consider nessassry to make the
> > car roadworthy .
> > 
> > Its not the garages responsiblity to advise them of future works required
> > altough some will as a cortisy .
> > 
> > The op also needs to consider that the car is not a new vehicle but a second hand
> > one traded in by another customer , the garage will not know what work has been
> > prevously performed , the op also needs to consider that the particular model
> > they purchased has a waterpump which is run by the cam belt , if this pump fails
> > it damages the cam belt causing failure and expensive repairs , vauxhall have a
> > similar issue with thier waterpumps and recomend  they are changed every four
> > years
> > 
> > This is a wear and tear issue , if the car was with its original owner its quite
> > possible renault may have offered some gesture of goodwill because of the low
> > milage as the car is no longer with the original owner renault wont give a fig
> > and i dont really blame them
> > 
> > To many people assume that tradesmen once they have visited your home or lifted
> > the bonnet on the car become responsible for all  future problems , they throw
> > around the duty of care argument and the your a professional argument as though
> > its a magic shield its not .
> > 
> > If i am asked to replace doors on a property its not my problem two years down
> > the line if they need trimming for a new carpet , or you find wet rot in the
> > frame unless you specifically tell me a new thicker carpet is to be installed or
> > can you check all the frames for wet rot , the same princibles applies to the
> > serviceing of cars
> 
> Steve, as I said I do not know the legal position, and suspect you are correct,
> but I still think, in the particular circumstance of this case, the garage might
> have a duty of care.  It is not a simple case of someone just asking a garage to
> undertake a specified service, which appears to be the basis of your advice.


Thats exactly the case , the garage ( chasing for work) advised them as a courtisy
that the 12 month service was due , there is no legal requirement to do this its
just a sales method to get the service work , which the garage carried out including
replaceing brake pads at that time the cam belt wasnt due to be changed , legally
the garage has no duty to tell them that in three months time they may need to think
about changing the cam belt

Within the  owners handbook  will be a service shedule which advises on maintainance
time scales this is supplied by the manufacturer , common sense  would be to read
this its important .

There is nothing to say that the cambelt did fail  its quite possible that the
waterpump failed and shreaded the timeing belt , this would have happened even if
the cam belt had been changed






> 
> They are a main dealer for a mainstream brand.  They therefore hold themselves out
> to be professionals. 

As do all garages of any standing 


 They sold the car so had the same opportunity as the buyer
> to see the records supplied with the car 


and should have the contacts to easily
> check for any variances in service requirements from their norm.  They contacted
> the buyer to arrange for the next due service, so again are holding themselves out
> to know what is required. 

Most cars require annual serviceing the garage was no doubt chasing for work in
these difficult times , those they have sold cars to are easy targets because threy
will have thier contact details

 The OP does not state what service was carried out so
> presumably the garage did whatever they considered appropriate, which should have
> been whatever the manufacturer specified for that service.

Which is what the garage did an annual service , the timing belt was not part of
that service and was not due



 The manufacturers
> recommended interval for the timing belt change was up before the next routine
> service.  Under those circumstances I would expect that garage to warn me when
> offering to undertake the service that the timing belt should be changed within a
> few months and offering to undertake that at the same time as the service.


You may expect that but they do not have any legal duty to do that , the infomation
is already supplied in the vehicle handbook .

Timing belt changes can be very easy to do others can take the best part of a day
and are a right royal pain in the arse to do , some garages shy away from some
models because of this and wont actually promote the fact that they can do the
change unless a person asks

> 
> In the circumstances described by the OP I too would expect the garage to correct
> the problems for no more than the cost of changing the timing belt or preferably
> free to compensate for the inconvenience caused by the failure of the vehicle.

Again what you would expect and what the garage has a legal duty to do is very
different , the op doesnt even know what caused the failure .

The op has no remedy against the garage 

As the owner/ driver its your responsiblity to make sure your vehicles maintaince
schedule is carried out
> 
> However, had I taken the car to any old garage and asked them to undertake a 25000
> mile service I would not have expected them to necessarily know that the timing
> belt also needed changing because an unrelated time interval was about to expire.

On 3 July, 07:01, "brum1969"  wrote:
> A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007 and
> sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to arrange
> a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
> that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads. She
> has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the pads,
> which were replaced.
>
> This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
> should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
> replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the car
> has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
> this 5 year rule.
>
> The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even though
> they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
> replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even though
> they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as they
> are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
> even though they service cars of different makes.
>
> What legal rights do we have in this regards?
>
> Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
> serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
>
> Regards
> Brum1969

My local independent garage, which has maintained several makes/models
of cars for me over many years offers a full or 'small' service. I can
ask them to remind me what is covered as standard within these. I'd
expect that any potential fault within the scope of the service, or
any blatant fault obvious when look at the mechanics, they'd phone me
about and seek permission to remedy. However, any mileage or period
replacements specified in the handbook, I'd expect it to be my
responsibilty to ask them to do, or to specifically look at. There is
probably a difference in responsibility in taking it to a Renault
franchise and specifically asking them to service it as per schedule,
and taking it to a non-Renault dealer for their general service. I'd
say the responsibility lies with you/your wife.

Toom

Old Codger,

I understand that people on this Newsgroup provide advise for free and in 
their own time - for which I am very grateful.  However, Steve and Peter 
felt the need to make totally unhelpful and rude remarks about my wife, 
which just shows what kind of people they are.

The fact that they disagree with my point of view is totally acceptable to 
me. However, my initial questions were to do with liability and my legal 
rights in this case.  The fact that Steve has seen fit to call my wife and I 
childish names just shows what kind of immature individual he is -  he needs 
to grow up FAST!!

As for my responses from other people, there seems to be something wrong 
with my news reader as I've only seen the responses in this newsgroup. I 
have NOT responded to anyone apart from Steve and Peter on here due to their 
comments. For that reason, I can not comment on the other responses.

I've seen certain comments about my wife asking for a 25,000 mile service 
and other comments about the timing belt not been part of the service. We 
didn't ask for a 25,000 mile service so I don't know where Peter got that 
from. Nor did I state that the checking or replacement of the belt was part 
of the service.  The service was carried out 2 months before the car became 
5 years old. As the belt MUST be changed before becoming 5 years old, I felt 
that she should have been told. I wasn't arguing about the belt being 
checked during the serviced or even changed as part of the service.

I just wanted to say that if you agree or disagree with my post, then say 
so. I got the impression that Peter and Steve feel the need to get nasty 
with people, or to belittle them - which I have no time for.

The gist of my post was to see if it was reasonable to expect my wife to 
know that the belt needed replacement after 5 years. I personally would not 
have known that, nor would I have expected anyone outside the motor trade to 
know that. Being told by people on here to read the manual was a view I 
didn't agree with.

UPDATE:

The garage came back to me today to say that they AGREE with my argument. My 
wife should have been told that the belt needed to be changed when the car 
was serviced in October 2008. Had she been given the option, she could have 
then decided whether to have the work done or not. Due to this, they will 
fix the damage to the engine and charge us for just the cost of replacing 
the belt - SUPERB!!


"Old Codger"  wrote in message 
news:4a4fd5a3$0$24009$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> brum1969 wrote:
>> Steve,
>>
>> You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my 
>> wife's predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and 
>> suggest you keep them to yourself next time!
>
> If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?
>
> Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others in 
> other newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them all 
> as wrong and insult the responders.  You should be thankful that folk are 
> prepared to consider your question and provide a response, even if that 
> response is not the one you wanted.
>
> I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A 
> Ford *main dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife a 
> car (not a Ford), then offered to service it at the appropriate time. They 
> did not however warn you that further work would be due shortly after the 
> service.  The fact that the car was not a Ford is, to my mind, irrelevant. 
> As professionals, who were presumably trying to build a relationship, they 
> should, and could, have found out the manufacturers recommendations.  I 
> think they do owe you a duty of care but, in view of the other responses, 
> cannot say that is a legal duty.  I would not use that garage again though 
> and I would tell everyone what a crap place it was.
>
> Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over 
> their dealers.
>
> If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try 
> posting to uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post there, 
> including the odd lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be any 
> different though.
>
> -- 
> Old Codger
> e-mail use reply to field
>
> What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people 
> believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

brum1969 wrote:
> Old Codger,
> 
<Snip>

> I just wanted to say that if you agree or disagree with my post, then
>  say so.

I believe I did indicate that I considered the garage owed you a duty of
care but was not sure if that was a legal duty.

> I got the impression that Peter and Steve feel the need to get nasty
> with people, or to belittle them - which I have no time for.

I did not consider the initial responses of Steve and Peter were
either nasty or intended to belittle you.  Both were factual.  It was
you who appeared to turn nasty when you did not get the responses you
presumably hoped for.  Only then did they respond in kind.

> The gist of my post was to see if it was reasonable to expect my wife
> to know that the belt needed replacement after 5 years. I personally
> would not have known that, nor would I have expected anyone outside
> the motor trade to know that. Being told by people on here to read
> the manual was a view I didn't agree with.

Do you normally not bother to read instruction manuals?

Was a manual supplied with the car?

Had you read the manual, particularly the servicing requirements, you
would have known that something (assuming you did not understand the
detail) needed replacing after 5 years and you would have been in a
position to at least ask about it.  Steve and Peter are quite right to
say that it is your responsibility to specify, or at least discuss and
agree with the garage, what you want done.

However, as I said in my post, I think in this particular case you have
some right to have expected that garage to have at least warned you that
the belt would need changing very soon.


> UPDATE:
> 
> The garage came back to me today to say that they AGREE with my 
> argument. My wife should have been told that the belt needed to be 
> changed when the car was serviced in October 2008. Had she been given
>  the option, she could have then decided whether to have the work
> done or not. Due to this, they will fix the damage to the engine and
> charge us for just the cost of replacing the belt - SUPERB!!

Jolly good, in my view that is the right result.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

brum1969 wrote:

> Old Codger,
> 
> I understand that people on this Newsgroup provide advise for free and in their
> own time - for which I am very grateful.  However, Steve and Peter felt the need
> to make totally unhelpful and rude remarks about my wife, which just shows what
> kind of people they are.


> 
> The fact that they disagree with my point of view is totally acceptable to me.
> However, my initial questions were to do with liability and my legal rights in
> this case.  The fact that Steve has seen fit to call my wife and I childish names
> just shows what kind of immature individual he is -  he needs to grow up FAST!!
>

 My remarks were only rude in response to your sarcastic comments , the only one
around here that needs to grow up is you




> As for my responses from other people, there seems to be something wrong with my
> news reader as I've only seen the responses in this newsgroup. I have NOT
> responded to anyone apart from Steve and Peter on here due to their comments. For
> that reason, I can not comment on the other responses.


Several people responded in the other forums , the basic consenus of which is its
your problem not the garages
> 
> I've seen certain comments about my wife asking for a 25,000 mile service and
> other comments about the timing belt not been part of the service. We didn't ask
> for a 25,000 mile service so I don't know where Peter got that from. Nor did I
> state that the checking or replacement of the belt was part of the service.  The
> service was carried out 2 months before the car became 5 years old. As the belt
> MUST be changed before becoming 5 years old, I felt that she should have been
> told. I wasn't arguing about the belt being checked during the serviced or even
> changed as part of the service.

The garage has no legal duty to tell you , as i and several others have posted your
wife is responsible for the maintainance of the car , all the infomation about
service intervals and the timing belt change is in the owners handbook or service
shedule that came with the car , if its missing renault would have provided you with
a new one for a few pounds , its not the garages fault that your wife couldnt be
bothered to read the manual

> 
> I just wanted to say that if you agree or disagree with my post, then say so. I
> got the impression that Peter and Steve feel the need to get nasty with people, or
> to belittle them - which I have no time for.
> 
> The gist of my post was to see if it was reasonable to expect my wife to know that
> the belt needed replacement after 5 years. I personally would not have known that,
> nor would I have expected anyone outside the motor trade to know that. Being told
> by people on here to read the manual was a view I didn't agree with.
> 
Thats why they supply the manual so that you are aware of the service shedule , i
suggest your wife reads it before anything else goes wrong

> UPDATE:
> 
> The garage came back to me today to say that they AGREE with my argument. My wife
> should have been told that the belt needed to be changed when the car was serviced
> in October 2008. Had she been given the option, she could have then decided
> whether to have the work done or not. Due to this, they will fix the damage to the
> engine and charge us for just the cost of replacing the belt - SUPERB!!

Thats a good result for your wife , the point is though they have no legal duty to
do this and its probably more to do with decent customer service

As i said before get your wife to read the handbook , you will find that brake fluid
and coolant should be changed at regular intervals too and these are not always part
of the standard serviceing routine

> 
> 
> "Old Codger"  wrote in message
> news:4a4fd5a3$0$24009$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > brum1969 wrote:
> > > Steve,
> > > 
> > > You obviously lack the intelligence to understand my query regarding my
> > > wife's predicament. Therefore I will ignore your unhelpful comments and
> > > suggest you keep them to yourself next time!
> > 
> > If you already knew the answer why did you ask the question?
> > 
> > Steve and Peter have given similar answers and I understand that others in
> > other newsgroups have also given similar answers yet you discard them all  as
> > wrong and insult the responders.  You should be thankful that folk are  prepared
> > to consider your question and provide a response, even if that  response is not
> > the one you wanted.
> > 
> > I also would be somewhat annoyed in the circumstances you describe.  A  Ford
> > *main dealer*, so not some inadequate small garage, sold your wife a  car (not a
> > Ford), then offered to service it at the appropriate time. They  did not however
> > warn you that further work would be due shortly after the  service.  The fact
> > that the car was not a Ford is, to my mind, irrelevant.  As professionals, who
> > were presumably trying to build a relationship, they  should, and could, have
> > found out the manufacturers recommendations.  I  think they do owe you a duty of
> > care but, in view of the other responses,  cannot say that is a legal duty.  I
> > would not use that garage again though  and I would tell everyone what a crap
> > place it was.
> > 
> > Have you thought of complaining to Ford?  They do have some control over  their
> > dealers.
> > 
> > If you really do think every one who has responded so far is wrong try  posting
> > to uk.legal.moderated.  A number of knowledgeable folk post there,  including
> > the odd lawyer.  Won't guarantee the responses will be any  different though.
> > 
> > --  Old Codger
> > e-mail use reply to field
> > 
> > What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
> > believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

brum1969 wrote:

> A Ford main dealer took delivery of a Renault Megane Scenic in July 2007 and
> sold it to my wife in October 2007. In October 2008 they rang her to arrange
> a service, which they promptly carried out. They only reported to my wife
> that the brake pads were low, so she allowed them to replace the pads. She
> has a receipt which clearly shows that the car was fine apart from the pads,
> which were replaced.
> 
> This week the timing belt snapped and to our horror, we found out that it
> should have been replaced in December 2008. Apparently, they have to be
> replaced after 72,000 miles or 5 years - whichever comes first. As the car
> has only done 25,000 we thought the belt was fine and did not know about
> this 5 year rule.
> 
> The garage is now trying to squirm its way out of any liability, even though
> they admit that they had not advised my wife that the belt needed to be
> replaced before December 2008. They are now trying to say that even though
> they serviced it, she could have looked it up in the manual. Also, as they
> are a Ford dealer they probably didn't know about the 5 year rule either -
> even though they service cars of different makes.
> 
> What legal rights do we have in this regards?
> 
> Can we hold the garage liable for not telling us about the belt, as they
> serviced the car and SHOULD have known about the belt life?
> 
> Regards
> Brum1969



I have cross posted all the replys from the uk legal