Customer Story of a Bad Experience

1.
Q: From Don's point of view, what is wrong here? What did the shop do wrong that upset Don so much? (After all, they were fixing his van).


A: Permission was not given to do a $400 job that, to me looks as though it wasn't necessary, even if permission had of been given. The instructions given to the mechanic and the actions taken by him a vastly different. The plans that the mechanic had should have been discussed prior to him doing anything further.


2.

Q: From the repair shop owner's point of view, what was wrong with Don getting upset at them? What did they do right or wrong?


A: Don hasn't specified a price range he would like to stay below. He simply said to them 'fix it' 'give it a tune up or something'. Nor did he ask for a quote in the first place. But still, I feel that the repair shop went to extreme measures to fix the van. It took them a while, and Don must of been missing out on business without his car or even a supplied rental car from the repair shop. Not asking permission and not even letting Don know what is needs to be done or how long it would take, is unloyal and dishonest.


3.

Q: What should have been done in this circumstance? If you were Don, what would you have wanted to be done?


A: The fairest way that it could be handled would be through The Disputes Tribunal. Where a trained referee can help the two parties reach a mutual agreement. Or make the decision if parties are unagreeable. But the problem is, they didn't have group such as The Disputes Tribunal in California in 1958. If I were Don, I wouldn't pay a cent. (but that is irrelevant, because I would have fixed it myself to begin with)

4.

Q: When the repair was finished, and Don went to pick up his van, he took the van and did not pay the whole repair bill. Did the repair shop have the right to hold the van until they got paid?

A: Don has made a fair decision. Both parties are in the wrong to a certain degree. This decision means that nobody wins. The repair shop wouldn't have the right to hold the van because they are, to some degree in the wrong as well.

5.
Q: If Don took the repair shop to court, what would you have ruled if you were the judge? Should the repair shop pay for a replacement rental vehicle? Should Don pay the whole repair bill? Should the repair shop pay Don for lost business because he could not pick up and deliver clothes to his customers?

A: I would call this one in favour of Don. It is the repair shops responsibility to ensure their customers have a clear understanding of what needs to be done, how long it will take and also how much it will cost. A rental or courtesy car should definitely have been offered, supplied and paid for by the repair shop. I would make Don pay for the whole bill, yes. But then the repair shop is to reimburse Don for the business he lost whilst he had no form of transport.

6.

Q: What New Zealand laws relate to this story? What do New Zealand laws say should have been done in this case?

A: Although the Consumer Guarantees Act sets out your responsibilities regarding spare parts, associated with that, comes some ethical responsibilities regarding servicing.


"When you offer servicing, you must ensure:
• That the service facilities promote a quality service, i.e., the customer does not have to return later

because the job was not done properly in the first place.

• The service is provided as efficiently as possible.

• Any quotes given prior to the work commencement reflect a reasonable price.

• All prices charged are reasonable.

• Replacement parts are of a high standard.

• Offer “replacements” while the product is being serviced.

• That the collection/pickup time is accurate, i.e., the customer is told that the product will be ready to

collect at 4 pm today, only to find they have to wait 2 days."