Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: April 1, 2014
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 8 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The Lincolnshire Echo reports a female motorist used the services of H&H Motors in Lincolnshire to change the cambelt on her vehicle.
Unfortunately the person that was given the job was working to repay a debt to the business and decided not to carry out the job. The garage owner, unaware of the omission, billed the motorist for the work and advised that the turbo was due for replacement. The motorist decided to get a second opinion, only to find the cambelt had not been changed. The garage owner was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay costs of £964.80. The employee who failed to carry out the work received a 12 week suspended sentence for 12 months. He was also ordered to pay £600 prosecution costs and a Good Causes charge of £80