It’s all about Caveat Emptor, which if you don’t know is Latin phrase for "let the buyer beware." The term is primarily used in real property transactions.
Essentially it proclaims that the buyer must perform their due diligence when purchasing an item or service, more so when it come to buying secondhand vehicles.
As to the repair by your local garage on the turbo, and they said’ don’t drive it, appears to beg the question why before they repaired the turbo did they not advise don’t drive it, even still how did they expect you to take it out of there garage after repair push it home.
They are now claiming we told you not to drive it after paying £1060 for a repair or if he did say’ don’t drive it, they where referring to the engine about to go at anytime?
We have the The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as amended) which lays down that work should be carried out with reasonable care and skill, at a reasonable price and within a reasonable time, The Act states that a supplier must carry out services with 'reasonable care and skill'. Surely,you as plumber must have come across this act in the course of you work.
If you consider the repair to be of poor quality, or the turbo supplied faulty, you should have written to the repairer explaining this and asking for the repair to be done again free of charge.
The act continues to point out if this is not successful, you should inform the repairer that you will have the work done elsewhere, and sue for the cost of the repairs, in which case it will be necessary to have evidence that the repair needed to be done again. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (as amended) requires that any new parts supplied must be of satisfactory quality. For example, if in the course of a repair to fit a new turbo, the work was done satisfactorily but the new turbo,proved faulty, you could seek redress under the above Act with the repairer.
It may possible for you to pursued them, in a small claims court, if it did go to court a judge would or should be asking the same questions, “why did they not warn the client as he started the van”, when taking it out of your garage?
And hopefully the judge believes also,they where twisting that reference too, don't drive it.
This issue in my opinion would be down to witnesses or any paper/verbal recommendations, if none, then it’s down to your word vs theirs.
It would appear that either the work or the replacement turbo to be at fault.
Check you house insurance to see if you have legal cover, if you do have cover, then a solicitor may be willing take your case on, and they may send out “letter before action” letters.
If a credit agreement is involved, the credit provider may be liable as well as the trader if there is a breach of contract, for example, if goods are unsatisfactory or another term of the contract has been broken, or if there has been misrepresentation. This is known as equal liability and arises under s75 Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Fighter
... I wish I could stand up to people like him!