The next stage in the saga!

[Jamesy]

Short answer is No, members permanently banned from the club are not allowed to participate in club events, that includes any hospitality we provide at events and club stands.

 

makes sense mate

[chris2o2]

Matt is pretty clear here that you have done EVERYTHING you should have with this project:

 

identified problems, fixed what u could within time frame, advised Matt of current problems etc....

 

...if he wants to drive it then thats not down to you - it aint your car and you dont have the power to keep someones motor against their will. you should have a clear conscious

 

I agree , you did your part .

 

Interesting read .

[AndyT]

Matt this risk assessment, duty of care business is an absolute minefield bud. I crapped at Marbleapples post because I have to deal with it.

Basically, the law hasn't been written and you can never take it for granted that you're free of liability. It's sh1t but that's pc Britain.

The only way I could see you getting out of the liability is to physically put the car on a transporter, off you're premises at the owners behest.

National Autocentres are in court everyday on cases like the above. They have coverage and good lawyers to protect them. You're doing the right thing and being smart.

I would sign for the car. If you said it's cr1p, I wouldn't take it. Just my opinion.

[marbleapple]

if a customer has paid his bill then I cannot prevent him from taking his property, to suggest his removal of the car would be theft is ludicrous as I would have no title over the vehicle. .

 

You are correct about above. I was under the presumption that if work was still on going and therefore payment was outstanding. Had he not paid his bill then you could hold the car since does not control it.

 

 

Now, the subject of negligence is interesting and I do not know if it has been tried in a court of law. But, the definition of negligence is the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care. .

 

Basic rule is 'did you go below the reasonable standard expected of a person in your position under the circumstances'. I.e. you forgot to put the brakes back on.

 

 

My circumstances where that the customer was demanding his property back despite being made aware of the faults, is that negligent ?

I cannot stop him removing his property from my premises, and I sure can't prevent him from driving it.

.

 

When I joined this conversation you did not state that the car had an MOT and the thread clearly suggested that the car was a mess, having being half finished. There is a big difference between you letting a person drive a car which you have MOT’d than a car with half the bits falling off.

 

Letting someone drive off with the cig lighter missing is hardly negligent. If however there were lots of serious errors with the car which you should have fixed, and you let Matt drive it, then if Matt was injured he probably would have a claim against you for negligence in Civil law. Obviously this is all 'ifs' but I was simply trying to bring you aware of the damagers so as to avoid them.

 

If he was killed and the court determined that the cause of death was (for arguments sake) a wheel nut which you should have fitted then your negligence could lead to negligent manslaughter. The negligence is not letting him drive, but not having the things fixed when you return them to him.

 

 

if I knowingly let the car leave and said nothing then that would be a failure to act and negligence. But that was far from the case.

.

 

I agree with above, but again I reiterate what I said above. When I posted this comment there was no mention of an MOT etc. It sounded as if there were loads of problems which you knew about and you let him drive off. For the benefit of other readers, Muffleman has clearly stated this is not the case.

 

 

Like I say, not trying to cause an arguement but when you have someone post on an internet forum expressions such as negligence, manslaughter, breach of duty of care and so on, you would expect me to make a response.

.

 

Totally understand but as I am sure you realise I was speaking generally and not specifically to this situation. Matt didn’t die so I doubt you will be getting accused of manslaughter any time soon. I was merely warning of the potential danger that you would be letting yourself into had you let Matt drive an unfinished car that wasn't paid for. This isn't the case here is it so you are fine.

 

I've been trading now for 7 months and although not perfect, I've built a pretty good reputation - and you only do that by hard work and putting in a great deal of effort.

 

I think everyone who reads this thread doesn’t disagree with you one bit. I think you will find that it is Matts actions not yours that are under the spot light.

 

My posts were designed to inform you of a danger you run should you let Matt drive an unfinished car. As it turns out, the car is MOT’d and paid for which was not the case at the time of making my intial posts.

 

There was no insult/slight intended on you or your business. I was simply trying to warn you that if you were letting people drive unfinished cars (which it appears is not the case) then you take the civil and legal risk and there is no legal way to avoid this by signing a disclaimer etc. I would prefer you not to have to face that.

Edited July 24, 2008 by marbleapple (see edit history)

[marbleapple]

Why do make you sign one on motorsport days / events ?

 

Its the same as saying trespassers will be prosecuted. Prosecuted for what? There is no such thing in law. There is no legal way to limit death and injury by your own negligence.

 

The disclaimer is used to limit your ability to claim for damage (not death or injury) however if you were killed due to the negligence of the people involved in the day then you have a claim (even if you are dead).

 

Matt is pretty clear here that you have done EVERYTHING you should have with this project:

...if he wants to drive it then thats not down to you - it aint your car and you dont have the power to keep someones motor against their will. you should have a clear conscious.

(as for banning Matt H for 24 hours.... bloody hell give the guy a break - he does ALWAYS speak out of turn granted, but is having a pretty sh!t time with his car right now!!! )

Think that sums up what I wanted to say nicely Muffleman.

[Homer]

Info for marbleapple as you might have missed it...

 

Matt's car was left in an unfinished state by another garage, it was nothing to do with AFR. Matt H then contacted AFR to fix a specific issue - the fact it wouldn't drive correctly (which AFR found was due to a split hose on the gearbox).

 

AFR fixed this, MOT'd the car and returned it to Matt. From what I've understood AFR were not requested to look at or fix other stuff, only to get the car MOT'd and the transmission working again.

[Muffleman]

Phew ! Right, I need a beer ... or six

 

Thanks for your post marbleapple, I'm a little bit sensitive tbh as I'm really trying to get this right

[marbleapple]

Phew ! Right, I need a beer ... or six

 

Thanks for your post marbleapple, I'm a little bit sensitive tbh as I'm really trying to get this right

 

 

I can totally understand.

 

I think I will keep my advice to myself from now on. Its the second time people have been upset by my ramblings. I mean well but I scare people too easily I think

[gaz1]

the law is a disgrace at the moment, for instance if someone cut the padlock from a construction site, then hot wired a dump truck went joy riding in it, then disposed of it in a canal? the e.a are trying to prosecute us for this as it actualy happened, and as we were the initial cause, i,e it was our dumper they can prosecute us:blink: go figure everyone that provdes a service motor trade or not have to be so so careful:rolleyes:

[Muffleman]

the law is a disgrace at the moment, for instance if someone cut the padlock from a construction site, then hot wired a dump truck went joy riding in it, then disposed of it in a canal? the e.a are trying to prosecute us for this as it actualy happened, and as we were the initial cause, i,e it was our dumper they can prosecute us:blink: go figure everyone that provdes a service motor trade or not have to be so so careful:rolleyes:

 

[marbleapple]

the law is a disgrace at the moment, for instance if someone cut the padlock from a construction site, then hot wired a dump truck went joy riding in it, then disposed of it in a canal? the e.a are trying to prosecute us for this as it actualy happened, and as we were the initial cause, i,e it was our dumper they can prosecute us:blink: go figure everyone that provdes a service motor trade or not have to be so so careful:rolleyes:

 

Had he hurt himself on an obvious danger when stealing the digger he would have been able to claim against you for occupiers liability too

[AndyT]

 

I can totally understand.

 

I think I will keep my advice to myself from now on. Its the second time people have been upset by my ramblings. I mean well but I scare people too easily I think

 

You keep doing it dude. As Gaz says, the laws cr1p and we need reminding of it constantly. Get complacent - suffer. You keep scaring away bud.

[gaz1]

Had he hurt himself on an obvious danger when stealing the digger he would have been able to claim against you for occupiers liability too

 

tell me about it, the feckers had 15k of copper cable too, suppose we will get a claim against us soon for him cutting his hand while stripping it:rolleyes:

anyway back on topic, you did the right thing matt (afr)(you had no choice)

and hope you get it sorted matt (h)

[Pig]

Sorry to go back on topic

 

I belive that AFR have done nothing wrong in the situation. I had refused to give someone there car back in the past but they did not dispute. They just paid to fix it.

However, it seems (and i dont know the facts) that they could have taken it if they had been fully paid up.

 

There seems to be lots of people bringing up neglegance. The only person that was neglegant in this scenario was Matt H. He knew the car had wheel studs missing, and was therefore unsafe and chose to drive the car. This endangered the public, if he had killed or injured someone he would be facing a serious legal case.

 

All IMO ofcourse.

[AndyT]

Sorry to go back on topic

 

I belive that AFR have done nothing wrong in the situation. I had refused to give someone there car back in the past but they did not dispute. They just paid to fix it.

However, it seems (and i dont know the facts) that they could have taken it if they had been fully paid up.

 

There seems to be lots of people bringing up neglegance. The only person that was neglegant in this scenario was Matt H. He knew the car had wheel studs missing, and was therefore unsafe and chose to drive the car. This endangered the public, if he had killed or injured someone he would be facing a serious legal case.

 

All IMO ofcourse.

 

Of course Matt AFR would have to PROVE he had informed the car owner.

Jump to jury. - Garage tuner man v show car owner. Everyone has been ripped by a garage. Where doi you think this'll go.

[Jamesy]

Lets be realistic though - i really cant see a 5 stud wheel being driven with ONE stud missing flying off and/or killing someone - if it was being driven on 2 studs then furry muff.

[Scott]

Lets be realistic though - i really cant see a 5 stud wheel being driven with ONE stud missing flying off and/or killing someone - if it was being driven on 2 studs then furry muff.

 

Cars are tested with 1 at a certain speed over a certain distance. Overtightening is the main cause of losing wheels.

 

Surprised at it passing an MOT with only 4 though.

[AndyT]

Lets be realistic though - i really cant see a 5 stud wheel being driven with ONE stud missing flying off and/or killing someone - if it was being driven on 2 studs then furry muff.

 

One member has had 3 go because of faulty fitting. You can't go loading critical components at 120%. If one goes, load is now proportionately higher = more and faster failure.

No way should a car be driven with wheel components missing.

[marbleapple]

The only person that was neglegant in this scenario was Matt H. He knew the car had wheel studs missing, and was therefore unsafe and chose to drive the car. This endangered the public, if he had killed or injured someone he would be facing a serious legal case.

 

 

Very true.

[RobSheffield]

Lets be realistic though - i really cant see a 5 stud wheel being driven with ONE stud missing flying off and/or killing someone - if it was being driven on 2 studs then furry muff.

 

On the same realistic frame of mind, since when did we start advocating 'ahh its only 1 of 5 missing, it will probably be ok'?

[AndyT]

On the same realistic frame of mind, since when did we start advocating 'ahh its only 1 of 5 missing, it will probably be ok'?

 

 

We don't advocate 4 wheels, done up properly, of the same width.

[marbleapple]

Talking about Matts car though.... I love the colour. Looking at the pics from ACE Cafe it has to be one of my favourite Supras.

[Jamesy]

On the same realistic frame of mind, since when did we start advocating 'ahh its only 1 of 5 missing, it will probably be ok'?

 

i'm not advocating anything mate im merely pointing out that is HIGHLY unlikely to fly off driving with 1 stud missing for a hundred miles or so.

 

personally i've always had all studs in, kinda makes sense, but to suggest people may be killed its a tad OTT

[Jamesy]

Talking about Matts car though.... I love the colour. Looking at the pics from ACE Cafe it has to be one of my favourite Supras.

 

true - saw it at AFR last week and looks pukka.

[Chris Wilson]

I have just found out that I cannot legally prevent a customer taking his car, all I can do is what I did - advise. Legally a customer can even drive away a car condemned by an MOT garage.

 

Exactly, a car can have reams of dangerous MOT fail points when tested and the testing station cannot stop the vehicle leaving the premises under its own steam, presumably to be repaired elsewhere, but just as possibly to be driven at speed and under duress for an unknown period. I have a car here that may well set alight if driven, and handles dangerously. I have told the owner, will put it in writing and it's up to him what he does with it, trailer it or drive it. I don't even want or intend to fix it.