Within the Club and on some trade websites we still hear of and read about stories where MOT centres are selling top of the range servicing packages and ‘strongly recommending’ the likes of new tyres, when neither may be needed to pass the test.

Which is presumably why chains like Just MOTs reassure motorists that MOTs are all they’ll be sold because MOTs are all they do; so they can’t have a vested interest in selling other services.

I now read that VOSA centres are to be asked/required to sign the Motor Industry  Service and Repair code  but I can’t see how this will outlaw this predatory practice or where this says that the business shouldn’t sell something the motorist doesn’t need or want to buy?

Just to remind us, this is the relevant bits of the Code and what subscribers agree to provide…

• honest and fair services
• open and transparent pricing
• invoices that match quoted prices

Pardon me but aren’t these requirements the bare and ethical minimum for ALL businesses regardless of industry.  And shouldn’t standards be SMART ones in an unregulated industry with a bad image and where bad garage work can mean unsafe cars and motorists being overcharged and sold services they don’t need?

I just don’t get it.

To begin with we were told that this Code was to encourage the cowboys to sign up.  But aren’t they likely to be the last ones to sign up when they don’t have to (unless it’s for a cheap £75 blast of publicity without any pre-inspection and with no intention of paying for  the later compliance visit?).

And surely by far the majority of Code subscribers operate to higher standards already (many much, much higher) so what’s the point of all this?

Is it just me questioning the wisdom here? I sometimes think that the likes of dealers have signed up without reading the code simply because they have been told to by their manufacturer. How does that raise garage standards for all motorists?

It doesn’t of course but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts…

FOXY Steph

NB: Relevant FOXY plug follows -  Wary women drivers can at least search for a female friendly garage that has signed the FOXY Promise to ‘never overcharge, patronise or sell them services they don’t need or want’ at FOXY Choice. We also show businesses that subscribe to a fully OFT approved code, are ATA employers or hold a BSI Kitemark in automotive services because we believe these are the main signs of tangible quality.
We also like Trading Standards’ Motor Trade Partnership schemes where they exist, but they are rare, fragmented and may not all be the same – which is a shame because the Trading Standards Institute SHOULD wield the power here on behalf of motorists.

If you prefer paying cash to avoid getting into debt you get less consumer protection that you would have by using a credit card. This is advice from the Trading Standards Institute, not me.

For example, if a foxy lady driver paid for garage services like car servicing or repairs by using her credit card, and if the work costs more than £100, she would be protected by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes the credit card company as responsible as the garage for a breach of contract or a misrepresentation. So, if she or any other driver was unhappy and unable to resolve the issue to her satisfaction she could take action against the garage owner (checking to find out if the owner is an individual, a partnership or a company), the credit card company or both.

But Section 75 does not apply if she were to pay by charge card or debit card.

Which seems daft to me when many smart females and males might prefer to pay cash or use a debit card… why should the law be any different depending on how you pay?

FOXY Steph

www.foxyladydrivers.com