Mk3 Cavalier Owners Club | Vauxhall Cavalier Dot Com

The key words are : -

Verbal contract.
Fit for purpose
Proven negligence
Deception
As discussed / described

The onus is on you to prove that the service provider was negligent or in breach of contract (written or verbal) or you were deceived.

Uh oh. More bad luck?

Continuation of previous. I maintain that "complete restoration" in addition to the work detailed on the invoice and the price paid is not compatible with being forced to get the car re-shelled barely 2 years later (arguably the condition has existed for quite some time back). I think this would tally with several of the "key words". I am now faced with the prospect of trying to enforce my legal rights. Trading Standards, Small Claims Court etc. It would be helpful of course if someone had trodden this course before and could pass on experience and what (not) to do ..

Iain,

You could try small claims, however as Rob pointed out - you need to prove that your interpretation of what you wanted was correctly portrayed to the repairer. Personally, I'd have been embarrassed to let the car go out with as much rot as the SRi has. But thats just me.

The man took on the job after inspecting it, bad as it was. He had the option of saying "sorry, it's past repair" but didn't. Instead he charged me £5K for it against a detailed invoice covering what was included in "full restoration". To me this excludes any talk of (mis)interpretation. If I'd given him the impression that I wanted a cheepo then he could not have acted the way he did.

It is a shame, like I say, if you feel you have a case, then you know what to do.

It's a nasty messy situation but (moral) support from the Club is always welcome!

I am going to try to download from PB a selection of the pics we took showing the condition of the shell 2 years (arguably less than that) = 11 K miles after the £5K full restoration























Why aren't the pics displaying when I preview?

Telegram Sam wrote:I am going to try to download from PB a selection of the pics we took showing the condition of the shell 2 years (arguably less than that) = 11 K miles after the £5K full restoration

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

[ Image ]]Image[/url] ]

Why aren't the pics displaying when I preview?

When you copy the IMG links from Photobucket, they already have the IMG tags either side of them. You simply need to just paste the code into your forum post, no need to click the 'insert image' icon before doing so, otherwise you add more IMG tags and the instruction to display the image (instead of the link to the image) is lost. I've edited your post, but just try pasting the code 'as is' next time

Tks for the tweaks, I will make a note for next time. Having said which, I think the original version of my post was less painful to see!

Telegram Sam wrote:Tks for the tweaks, I will make a note for next time. Having said which, I think the original version of my post was less painful to see!

I must admit, I'm at a loss to work out what part of the car half of those pics are showing me, and how they relate to the original brief/work carried out by the body shop.

Yea, some of the pics had me puzzling over which part they showed. In the end though I don't think that is so important compared with taking the total end result and comparing it with the original "full restoration" brief that formed the basis of the contract.

humbucker wrote:

Telegram Sam wrote:Tks for the tweaks, I will make a note for next time. Having said which, I think the original version of my post was less painful to see!

I must admit, I'm at a loss to work out what part of the car half of those pics are showing me, and how they relate to the original brief/work carried out by the body shop.

Never imagined it quite that bad Iain, that's shocking .
It would be interesting & informative if you posted the detailed invoice, obviously with company and your personal info hidden. Forum members may be able to offer more detailed advice to help your case.
(quick old-school way ) - cover relevant details with cut post-it notes then scan

Just my opinion but all the interior shots present signs of accelerated rusting from the inside ( outward facing holes & large plaques ) and the floorpans appear to show signs of water staining. Did you have dampness/condensation problems?
Your arch pic made me go out to check mine. Around where that rust-hole is there's supposed to be hole with a grommet/bung (can't remember which). I checked my nearside one. Looks like the garage I got it at welded at didn't think it important enough to replace 2 years ago, now I've found a 1/4" hole in my outer sill.
My thinking is,( bearing in mind that the welding I can Identify from the pics looks stronger than the metal around it, as it should be), water has been trapped inside the car. Could the "branded underseal" have blocked drainage from sunroof , sills etc. ? Or did the garage weld over drain/air holes or not reconnect pipes?
Questions, questions

ilovedmymantas wrote:It would be interesting & informative if you posted the detailed invoice. All the interior shots present signs of accelerated rusting from the inside ( outward facing holes & large plaques ) and the floorpans appear to show signs of water staining. Did you have dampness/condensation problems? Could the "branded underseal" have blocked drainage from sunroof , sills etc. ?

This.

I could post up the invoice details suitably disguised though I'd have to tread carefully. Likewise the comments from the restorer in Newcastle.
The trap to avoid is to get bogged down in the details. In essence after his inspection a "full restoration" was agreed and charged for. Bearing in mind that the average owner-driver can't see through underseal and into cavities etc (without himself doing the stripping down), the onus can't be on the latter to specify exactly what needs to be done and how (even less how the corrosion got there in the first place). At the end of the day it boils down to a matter of trust, and the reputation of the guy who takes on the job.

On the contrary; I think ilovedmymantas was trying to say that it is impossible to provide advice without knowing what was on the original quote/invoice from the bodyshop (e.g. if the floor has rotted through and there was no mention of any work to the floor in the brief, then obviously the body shop isn't at fault). Moreover, sensitive drainage points throughout a car's chassis shouldn't be blocked by the application of thick 'rust busting' solutions - the suggestion being that perhaps blocking these has caused the problem of water being trapped inside the car (although the level of corrosion would suggest that it has been an issue for some considerable time). Not that we know one way or the other if that's the case, and you're right to say that it shouldn't be your job to ensure the work has been done properly, but there really is no way of us knowing what's what without the 'bigger picture'.

The initial discussions and briefing were verbal and based on "trust". That was perhaps in retrospect unwise. But I come back to my point: If the man stripped and examined the car and based on what he found in his workshop agreed to do a "full" restoration at a "full" restoration price, then something is seriously wrong with what happened subsequently and there is no justification for the present condition. I should not have to have guessed that there was serious corrosion in for example the bulkhead (or the floor or anywhere else), and get him to specify it individually, for this to be included in "full".

humbucker wrote:On the contrary; I think ilovedmymantas was trying to say that it is impossible to provide advice without knowing what was on the original quote/invoice from the bodyshop (e.g. if the floor has rotted through and there was no mention of any work to the floor in the brief, then obviously the body shop isn't at fault). Moreover, sensitive drainage points throughout a car's chassis shouldn't be blocked by the application of thick 'rust busting' solutions - the suggestion being that perhaps blocking these has caused the problem of water being trapped inside the car (although the level of corrosion would suggest that it has been an issue for some considerable time). Not that we know one way or the other if that's the case, and you're right to say that it shouldn't be your job to ensure the work has been done properly, but there really is no way of us knowing what's what without the 'bigger picture'.

All of the above, the devil's in the detail!
1 Having looked at all the past posts I see you do have a condensation problem(page 4).
2 I doubt Turbo Toms would post a start-to-finish job on facebook if they were doing a shit job https://www.facebook.com/43302705014534 ... =3&theater, although I would have liked to see more detailed pics e.g. welded bits, and rust inhibitor on un-welded parts.
3 To be honest it was a poor specimen to start with , and TT did a good job.
4 In all the pics I cannot see a single grommet.
In my opinion the car has been sealed up so tight that it can't remove the water, hence the condensation and extreme rust problem.
I've owned & driven cavs for 20 years and know that level of rust is extreme. My money's on the" sealing" being the problem tbh.

The danger is to get bogged down (endlessly) in the detail. Simple plain facts:
He took the job on after inspection. Did a full restoration and charged me the full restoration price (he could have and perhaps should have turned the job down). He could have and should have addressed any water retention problem.
Two co's in the bodywork business have since "condemned" the results independently - it was arguably deficient a year or more ago
The only way of getting the car back on the road - 2 years later - is now to get the work done properly by someone else.
End of !!

Telegram Sam wrote:The danger is to get bogged down (endlessly) in the detail. Simple plain facts:
He took the job on after inspection. Did a full restoration and charged me the full restoration price (he could have and perhaps should have turned the job down). He could have and should have addressed any water retention problem.
Two co's in the bodywork business have since "condemned" the results independently - it was arguably deficient a year or more ago
The only way of getting the car back on the road - 2 years later - is now to get the work done properly by someone else.
End of !!

Unfortunately in this case, if you were to go the legal route, the endlessly draining fine details are what will be called into question. Not trying to let air out of the tyres or anything but what one mans "full restoration" is will be different to what another man calls a "full restoration". If the invoice doesn't heavily detail exactly what a "full restoration" is, with a breakdown of the work being done, you may have a hard time is all as the whole verbal trust thing may not stand up too well in a court.

I had a gander at the photos and although there was a fair amount of work being done, I didn't see any drain hole along the repair sills etc. I would be thing along the drainage issue route myself, these cars need to breath a little and if the quantity of underseal in some of your previous pictures was anything to go by I'd say the car was bunged up and condensation/moisture couldn't escape.

It is a horrible situation to be in so I really do feel for you.

Yup I suppose that's what the legal guys are paid to sort out taking the evidence into account. If it was "shades of grey" that would be a different matter.

If having done the work he didn't allow for "drainage" - "I rest my case" as they say (even if I don't)!

I would say that bulkhead rot has been festering for years before you had the rear inner and outer arch's done. How are the repairs holding up that were done by turbo tom? Also it looks like rust buster went a bit mad with the spray gun

You're most likely right. The very basic point is this though (there is a Catch 22 parallel somewhere in the Hitchhiker's Guide ..)

It can hardly be up to the little old lady owner-driver to spell out to the specialist car restorer in detail what needs to be done to deliver a "full restoration" if she hasn't got access to a rig or a ramp, can't see through underseal, and can't distinguish a bulkhead from a rear axle. It's up to him to decide how to get rid of the grot, and then how much underseal or whatever to apply etc in order to justify the description "restoration" under Trades Description - or not to take on the job in the first place. In Bonello's opinion much of the corrosion must have been present 2 years ago, but concealed by the underseal - until it started to show through.

Unfortunately in this case, if you were to go the legal route, the endlessly draining fine details are what will be called into question. Not trying to let air out of the tyres or anything but what one mans "full restoration" is will be different to what another man calls a "full restoration". If the invoice doesn't heavily detail exactly what a "full restoration" is, with a breakdown of the work being done, you may have a hard time is all as the whole verbal trust thing may not stand up too well in a court.

I had another look at what was detailed in the invoice (and could I suppose paste up what it says). There are quite a number of technical restoration measures listed. I still maintain that it would be unreasonable to expect the layman to wade through these, after the job, and then in effect identify what was missing in order to conflict with the description "full restoration" and account for the state that it is now in. I rather get the impression that the legal people agree.

I am looking for a replacement idle control valve for the 20 SEH 8-valve if anyone knows of one in good nick looking for a home. One aftermarket one I saw on eBay said that it was made in China