Can garage hold car if tyres are not roadworthy

fletch

If you drop a car into a garage and your thread is not road worthy, are they legally allowed to allow you drive the car away?

mik_da_man

I would think so.
happened to me when I got a service once.
They had "Needs two rear tyres" on the invoice and I was told that they needed changing

ArphaRima

Interesting thought.
But I would think they cannot. They have no power of detention. Certainly they could report it.

What happens at an NCT centre if a car is found to be dangerous?

Darragh29

It's your car and you can take it where you want. They have no right to "hold" it until you buy new tyres. If you have no tyres at all on your car, you can take it away, once you accept responsibility for that decision. All they need to do is record that they advised you of the risks and also I imagine point it out verbally to you with a witness. That way, if you crash around the corner, you've been advised and it's your problem. But as for, "we're holding your car because we think you need new tyres and we are making you get them by holding onto your car", if someone tried that one with me...

;);)

Alzar

I don't think they can. One of my workmates drove her car away after been told she needed 2 new one's for her 07 golf. Her tyres were below the legal limit.

She got the same tyres cheaper elsewhere.

Al.

fletch

Thanks all for the replies!

galwaytt

no, they cannot. It's your car, and they are not the police.......

Darsad

There is an onus on a garage to ensure that a customer does not drive away in an unroad worthy vehicle. Not matter what is said or written on a invoice the garage are deemed to be the experts and as such have a responsibility that cannot be diluted . ( if something were to happen people and their solicitors would be only too quick to look to appoint blame ) Prior to the NCT I remember many vehicles been tested in dealers and subsequently deemed unfit for the scrap heap let alone the road. i remember a number of cases where dealers refused to allow the customer drive away in the car and insisted on engaging a recovery vehicle to return the vehicle to the customers home. a garage thats hands over an unroad worthy vehicle to a customer is taking a risk and the problem is not too many workshop managers know this fact.

Darragh29

Darsad wrote: »

There is an onus on a garage to ensure that a customer does not drive away in an unroad worthy vehicle. Not matter what is said or written on a invoice the garage are deemed to be the experts and as such have a responsibility that cannot be diluted . ( if something were to happen people and their solicitors would be only too quick to look to appoint blame ) Prior to the NCT I remember many vehicles been tested in dealers and subsequently deemed unfit for the scrap heap let alone the road. i remember a number of cases where dealers refused to allow the customer drive away in the car and insisted on engaging a recovery vehicle to return the vehicle to the customers home. a garage thats hands over an unroad worthy vehicle to a customer is taking a risk and the problem is not too many workshop managers know this fact.

Not true, customers are adults and after being fully advised of the risks, they are entitled to make an irrational or illogical decision with regard to their own safety. I'd have myself well covered, I'd explain the risks verbally and in writing and have a witness present. After that, it's simply your choice what you want to do...

No garage has a right to impound your car because you want to shop around for a better price for something. OP, it might be a worthwhile exercise to take a few pics of these tyres and post them up here so we can see if someone has been trying to scare you into a new set of tyres or what is going on here...

SAABMAN

Where do you draw the line between what is "safe" or not? I know a guy who went to get brakes checked and they were so bad the garage wouldn't let the car out. When they started work on it, everything just fell on the floor.
They didn't care who did the work but they couldn't knowingly let a dangerous car back on the road.
Maybe not a question of law, but one of ethics

ArseBurger

fluffer wrote: »

What happens at an NCT centre if a car is found to be dangerous?

There are three outcomes of an NCT test.

1) Car passes - all good
2) Car fails but is roadworthy - you have a period of time to fix it and retest
3) Car is found not to be roadworthy - they do not release the car

robtri

ArseBurger wrote: »

There are three outcomes of an NCT test.

1) Car passes - all good
2) Car fails but is roadworthy - you have a period of time to fix it and retest
3) Car is found not to be roadworthy - they do not release the car

Number three is wrong.....
I am sure on that one.....
my mate, dropped is 95 GT over for the nct, first one ever even though he has had the car for 5 years....
anyway, to say it failed spectaculary is an understatement, and all four tyres where near bald....
the NCT sheet he has was highlighted by the mechanic doing the check, with a big green marker, and it had the this car is not roadworthy..
yet we where allowed to drive it away....

garages and nct do not have any right under law to hold your car for roadworthiness, only the garda can do this...

ArphaRima

The only doubt I have is over NCT's. There might be bye-laws or other legislation empowering them to impound cars.

No way I would let a garage impound my car for any reason. I'd be up in arms. If work needed doing, then I will shop around for the best deal. I will not be held hostage by a mechanic. Not that I ever let my car fall into disrepair.

furtzy

Overheard a huge arguement in the NCT centre between a NCTS tester and a customer. Turns out his car couldn't be tested on the brake testing machine as its brakes were that bad. They were saying they wanted him to arrange a recovery truck. Didn't hang around to find out the outcome so would be interested to find out could they keep the car

smash

They can't hold your car, but they'll make you sign a disclaimer to say they told you the car wasn't road worthy.

Alun

furtzy wrote: »

Overheard a huge arguement in the NCT centre between a NCTS tester and a customer. Turns out his car couldn't be tested on the brake testing machine as its brakes were that bad. They were saying they wanted him to arrange a recovery truck. Didn't hang around to find out the outcome so would be interested to find out could they keep the car

If the brakes were THAT bad, i.e. dangerous, could the NCT have called the guards and got them to either impound the car, or forced him to trailer it away?

crosstownk

steve06 wrote: »

They can't hold your car, but they'll make you sign a disclaimer to say they told you the car wasn't road worthy.

Agreed. This would be the best course of action. As stated previously, the car is your property and you can take it away with you if you like irrespective of any potention safety issues. However, it is the repairers responsibility to inform you of anything that may compromise your safety or the safety of other road users. The garage should make you sign a disclaimer that clearly shows that the isuue and potential consequences were brought to your attention and that, despite prefessional advice, you chose to drive on.

Cookie_Monster

SAABMAN wrote: »

Maybe not a question of law, but one of ethics

But, thankfully, in the real world laws matter and ethics don't.

And sure it's not ethically acceptable to deny someone access to their property nor try and hold a car so work can be done on it by your garage rather than whereever the customer chooses.

Darragh29

ArseBurger wrote: »

There are three outcomes of an NCT test.

1) Car passes - all good
2) Car fails but is roadworthy - you have a period of time to fix it and retest
3) Car is found not to be roadworthy - they do not release the car

They will release the car on each and every occasion. They have no basis in law for doing otherwise. All they will do is issue you with a fail sheet which will state that your car is unroadworthy and unsafe to drive. You've then been informed, and however you wish to deal with that statement is entirely up to yourself.

Equally a garage cannot "make" someone sign a disclaimer. You can emphasise as strongly as you think the situation might merit, that the customer does not drive the car, but if you are dealing with someone who doesn't want to take your advice, then you cannot "force" them to comply.

Darragh29

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

But, thankfully, in the real world laws matter and ethics don't.

And sure it's not ethically acceptable to deny someone access to their property nor try and hold a car so work can be done on it by your garage rather than whereever the customer chooses.

I once had a customer who was driving a Passat that a problem with a coil pack. Basically the effect of this problem was that 50% of the fuel being injected into the engine was not being burnt in the engine, but was passing through the engine and causing a furnace to start up in the catalytic converter.

I advised her that if she drove the car any further, it would probably catch fire (it was already driven to the garage and the cat was yellow at this stage and the engine & driver area footwell was starting to smoke. As it happened, the quote was around 400 Euro to sort the problem out and she was a little cynical of me advising her not to drive the car again. So I showed her the cat that was yellow with heat and she could feel the heat on her face from the furnace going on inside the cat. She decided to take my advice and thanked me for thinking of her and her kids.

A lot of these situations can be dealt with by keeping the customer educated and trying your best to be as transparent as you can. For example, invite the customer to bring someone down to give a second opinion, etc. People aren't stupid and if you spend some time educating them and explaining the problem in simple terms, 8/9 times out of 10, they will appreciate it and accept that you are acting in their best interests.

The 1/2 out of 10 who will always see a conspiracy theory, all you can do is explain as best you can and accept that they don't take advice and then let them make their own decision and make sure you have your arse well covered when they do make that decision.

Cookie_Monster

Darragh29 wrote: »

<snip>

Fair play and I have to say I would expect a garage to let me know of any problems encountered and thank them for it.

What I meant was that you cannot put your ethics over what you are legally entitled to do / not to do in relation to someone elses car and a court will take no notice of your ethical reasons if it came to that.

OF course there will always be people who think you are trying to do them over, same as there will always be people who are suspicious if they leave it in for a service and are told the brakes or whatever will need to be done too, such is life.

jhegarty

ArseBurger wrote: »

There are three outcomes of an NCT test.

1) Car passes - all good
2) Car fails but is roadworthy - you have a period of time to fix it and retest
3) Car is found not to be roadworthy - they do not release the car

Not true. There is only two types of failed nct. One that requires a full retest and one that requires a visual inspection.

The most he nct could do is ring the gardai (as a anyone can) to meet you as you drive out.

gofaster_s13

Doe test centres are told to advise the customer that the vehicle is dangerously unroadworthy, tell the customer that the vehicle cannot be driven off the premises and notify the RSA, the local authorised officer who will in turn notify the guards, we were told by the RSA that we had the right to physically impound the vehicle after we had notified the above people.

Darragh29

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

Doe test centres are told to advise the customer that the vehicle is dangerously unroadworthy, tell the customer that the vehicle cannot be driven off the premises and notify the RSA, the local authorised officer who will in turn notify the guards, we were told by the RSA that we had the right to physically impound the vehicle after we had notified the above people.

You have no right to impound any person's car!!! If you genuinely believe that you have this right, can you point to the legislation that gives you the power in law to take possession of someone else's property without their consent???

Say I service a car and I find the windscreen wipers are not working because the wiper motor needs to be replaced. The customer comes to collect the car, she's in a hurry and I tell her I can't let her have the car because the wipers are not working, I have to order in a motor and it is lashing out of the heavens so she won't be able to see what is in front of her??? Will ya pull the other one!

The only people who I am aware of, who are empowered in law to take possession of your vehicle from you are:

(1) The gardai.

(2) Customs & Excise.

(3) Possibly a county or revenue sheriff, but only on foot of a court order.

galwaytt

Darsad wrote: »

There is an onus on a garage to ensure that a customer does not drive away in an unroad worthy vehicle. Not matter what is said or written on a invoice the garage are deemed to be the experts and as such have a responsibility that cannot be diluted . ( if something were to happen people and their solicitors would be only too quick to look to appoint blame ) Prior to the NCT I remember many vehicles been tested in dealers and subsequently deemed unfit for the scrap heap let alone the road. i remember a number of cases where dealers refused to allow the customer drive away in the car and insisted on engaging a recovery vehicle to return the vehicle to the customers home. a garage thats hands over an unroad worthy vehicle to a customer is taking a risk and the problem is not too many workshop managers know this fact.

Nonsense.

gofaster_s13

But if that person refuses to pay the bill you can hold onto the vehicle, test centres arent taking the vehicle off the owner they are just refusing to release it as it is dangerously unroadworthy.

Owen

I could be very very wrong on this, but I seem to remember hearing about, or in passing picked up that there's some mad hippy tree hugging EU law that will place the blame on a garage if they let someone drive away with bald tires, and allows the garage to hold the vehicle until the matter is rectified. Could be very very wrong on this, but it's in the back of my mind.

Darragh29

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

But if that person refuses to pay the bill you can hold onto the vehicle, test centres arent taking the vehicle off the owner they are just refusing to release it as it is dangerously unroadworthy.

This is another urban myth. If you have work done to the value of say 500 Euro, and your car is worth less than 1,000 Euro, then the garage can keep the car as it represents more than 50% of the value of the car. If your car is worth 2,000 Euro and you have a bill of 500 Euro that you don't want to pay, unless you have signed a document to the effect that you agree to allow the garage to maintain possession of your vehicle until your bill has been paid in full, then you are entitled to take your car away and not pay your bill.

The garage are of course entitled, if you don't want to pay but want to take your car away, to remove the new components they have fitted and they are under no obligation to refit the old components, so the situation above would very rarely arise.

I've a mate who had to deal with an extremely akward taximan not so long ago, who tried this game on him. He brought his car to have a clutch fitted and the job came in at around 1,400 Euro (dual mass flywheel clutch, etc). The car was valued at around 8K-10K. When he came to pick up the car, he said he would call back next week to "fix up". When it was made clear to him that this option wasn't available to him, he got all offended and said he expected credit and was surprised/annoyed that it wasn't available to him.

He demanded the car back and when it wasn't happening, he called the Gardai and a Garda came down to sort out the matter. That Garda had to call the superintendent/inspector back at the station and the end of the story was that the Gardai had legal advice that if the disputed amount was less than 50% of the value of the car, the garage could not continue to keep the car.

My mate rang his own solicitor (by this stage, the taximan had got into the car and put his f*cking meter on and intended taking the final amount off his invoice!!!), and was advised that while he was obliged under the circumstances to give the customer back the car, he was equally entitled to take whatever parts that he had fitted (which he still owned until he was paid for them), out of the vehicle and to keep these parts.

So the car was put back up on a lift, gearbox back out, all replacement parts that were fitted were taken out and retained. The gearbox, bolts, nuts, driveshafts, everything f*cked into the boot and the wheels were stuck back on and the car pushed outside the garage to the disgust of the taximan!

He was then given an invoice for one clutch fit and 3 hours labour on top of that for having to take the parts out and was told he would be taken to court for his messing. If he hadn't have called the Gardai, it would have probably been resolved, but he went all in with the wrong guy and ended up paying a price for it!

ned78 wrote: »

I could be very very wrong on this, but I seem to remember hearing about, or in passing picked up that there's some mad hippy tree hugging EU law that will place the blame on a garage if they let someone drive away with bald tires, and allows the garage to hold the vehicle until the matter is rectified. Could be very very wrong on this, but it's in the back of my mind.

I don't know of any legal basis for it. There are a lot of urban myths out there that have no actual basis.

gofaster_s13

50% of the value of the vehicle is the urban myth, he was intitled to exercise a "Lien" (A hold or claim which one person has upon the property of another as a security for some debt or charge.") on the vehicle which means he can hold onto the vehicle until the debt is settled in full. If a garage fits new parts, they are not intitled to remove them and leave the vehicle in worse condition than it was given to them in nor are they allowed refit old defective parts. Your friend got bad legal advice. Regarding holding onto a dangerously defective vehicle I can only comment on it from a DOE point of view which is that we are allowed hold onto it after we have notified the RSA, the testing authorised officer and the guards and we have used this facility on numerous occassions usually for things like burst brake pipes, very badly worn steering and suspension balljoints among other things.

Darragh29

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

50% of the value of the vehicle is the urban myth, he was intitled to exercise a "Lien" (A hold or claim which one person has upon the property of another as a security for some debt or charge.") on the vehicle which means he can hold onto the vehicle until the debt is settled in full.

This is what I was referring to above, but as the value of the vehicle far exceeded the value of the work done, the garage in question could not exercise this particular option and this was confirmed by the Garda that turned up to deal with the matter.

gofaster_s13 wrote: »

If a garage fits new parts, they are not intitled to remove them and leave the vehicle in worse condition than it was given to them in nor are they allowed refit old defective parts. Your friend got bad legal advice. Regarding holding onto a dangerously defective vehicle I can only comment on it from a DOE point of view which is that we are allowed hold onto it after we have notified the RSA, the testing authorised officer and the guards and we have used this facility on numerous occassions usually for things like burst brake pipes, very badly worn steering and suspension balljoints among other things.

Again, can you point to the legislative basis for this entitlement that you claim to have??? Say I'm driving a van to the DOE centre for testing and my brake hose bursts. You're seriously expecting me to believe that I've to subsequently deal with the Gardai, the RSA and some lad called a Testing Authorised Officer, whatever that may be??? Absolute rubbish, I'm not disagreeing with you when you say that yourself or the RSA believe that you have this power, what I'm saying is that I have yet to be made aware of a legislative basis for it.

If a garage supplies parts and the customer refuses to pay for these parts, the garage can take these parts off the vehicle, as they own the parts.