|
|
Dec 20, 2018 20:18:00 GMT
|
Probably because the legal definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Hence if you charge someone for 4 hours labour but have only spent 2 hours working on the job, that meets the definition of fraud. And when you charge 4 hours but it took you six because someone has had a go before, I guess that's not fraud?..... If you have spent 10 000 hours learning your trade to do a 4 hour job in 2 hours, why should you charge two hours?..... No fraud there, Mate, just hard graft....😊
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2018 20:19:15 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2018 20:35:22 GMT
|
Yes maybe, however, what happens when the customer pays 3 hrs for a clutch on one vehicle, the next mechanically identical vehicle comes in, but it has a few seized screws, snapped screws in the flywheel that can't be drilled out as they're 12.9 or 14.9 and takes 12 hours? It's categorically not fraud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2018 21:39:00 GMT
|
That's the motor trade for you ( said as an escapee ).
Young mate took his car in for main dealer MOT yesterday . It failed on wiper blades which is a nice little earner . However he told them he'd do the job and return it for a retest . Strange that the wipers blades were checked THAT morning and weren't torn then. However all three blades had runner tears exactly the same length that allowed the metal edge to sit on the screen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2018 21:43:09 GMT
|
you think this is bad? be a lift engineer ... all companies do it to an extent, motor trade or not. Stop being so "Millennial" moaning about it. The way the world works.
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 20, 2018 21:51:41 GMT by slammage
|
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2018 22:48:22 GMT
|
Probably because the legal definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Hence if you charge someone for 4 hours labour but have only spent 2 hours working on the job, that meets the definition of fraud. But the garage isn't charging on a hourly basis so they haven't charged for 4 but only done 2 hours work. What they've done is given the customer a quote based on a estimate of how long it might possibly take. The customer has then agreed to that quote, and at the end of the job the garage has charged them the agreed amount. Where's the fraud? How the garage has come up with that quote is irrelevant. They could of just pulled a number out of their ass for all it matters.
|
|
|
|
lord13
Part of things
Posts: 536
|
|
|
That's the motor trade for you ( said as an escapee ). Young mate took his car in for main dealer MOT yesterday . It failed on wiper blades which is a nice little earner . However he told them he'd do the job and return it for a retest . Strange that the wipers blades were checked THAT morning and weren't torn then. However all three blades had runner tears exactly the same length that allowed the metal edge to sit on the screen. Ahhh there's a reason for that, when testing blades visually, you lift the blade off the screen, take the very end of the blade in your fingers and give it a gentle pull, if the blade rips away from the base they were worn and in need of replacement, hence why the blades in this case were all ripped away from the arm...although it is meant to be gentle pressure some disreputable testers will give it a good old tug to tear the blade... I will state that this is only after determining that the blades do not clear the screen ( as a worn blade will flex more and not 'wipe' properly).
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 10:33:26 GMT
|
Cam Belt change charges are bad (arn't they)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 13:21:14 GMT
|
£90 Labour for me a belt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 13:33:11 GMT
|
Probably because the legal definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Hence if you charge someone for 4 hours labour but have only spent 2 hours working on the job, that meets the definition of fraud. And when you charge 4 hours but it took you six because someone has had a go before, I guess that's not fraud?..... No. Read the definition - if you do 6 but charge for 4 you are not securing unfair or unlawful gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 13:44:10 GMT
|
Probably because the legal definition of fraud is "deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain". Hence if you charge someone for 4 hours labour but have only spent 2 hours working on the job, that meets the definition of fraud. But the garage isn't charging on a hourly basis so they haven't charged for 4 but only done 2 hours work. What they've done is given the customer a quote based on a estimate of how long it might possibly take. The customer has then agreed to that quote, and at the end of the job the garage has charged them the agreed amount. That wasn't the example though. If you give a fixed price to carry out a piece of work, then how long you estimated it to take is irrelevent and how long it actually took is irrelevent. What you cannot do is is give someone a bill for 4 hrs labour (at whatever your hourly rate is) when you have only done 2 hours labour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 14:20:09 GMT
|
And when you charge 4 hours but it took you six because someone has had a go before, I guess that's not fraud?..... No. Read the definition - if you do 6 but charge for 4 you are not securing unfair or unlawful gain. The original thread asked a question along the lines of ‘ is there a flat rate manual to work out times certain car repairs take to do? Which there is. Sorry, but nobody in their right mind is going to charge someone 25 minutes labour if that’s what they can do a job in, when the flat rate manual states a reasonable amount of time to do that job is four hours . It’s used to work out a quote, to which you have the option of accepting or declining. By accepting the quote, you agree to pay that price for that job. If it took double the time of what was originally quoted, you would tell the repairer to go whistle if he came along asking for further payment. By the same token, nobody in their right mind, repairer or car owner is going to embark on getting a job done without asking for a quote first. So your whole fraud argument is more than a bit redundant....
|
|
Last Edit: Dec 21, 2018 16:15:09 GMT by Deleted
|
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2018 14:28:41 GMT
|
But the garage isn't charging on a hourly basis so they haven't charged for 4 but only done 2 hours work. What they've done is given the customer a quote based on a estimate of how long it might possibly take. The customer has then agreed to that quote, and at the end of the job the garage has charged them the agreed amount. That wasn't the example though. If you give a fixed price to carry out a piece of work, then how long you estimated it to take is irrelevent and how long it actually took is irrelevent. What you cannot do is is give someone a bill for 4 hrs labour (at whatever your hourly rate is) when you have only done 2 hours labour. But that was exactly the example given, feel free to go back and reread the post about the clutch change. The "book time" he mentions is the estimated time quoted on autodata. The garage then takes that estimate and uses it to work out the quote (book time X garages hourly rate = the garages quote). They then bill them that quote at the end of the job. Some people seem to be confusing the book time with hourly rate. They are not being charged for X amount of hours labour. They are being charged a bill that is worked out before a spanner is even picked up, based on a estimated time for the job on a industry wide computer program. The job may not take as long as the program says (it may even take longer), but that is irrelevant to the customer because they are not being charged an hourly rate to do the job.
|
|
|
|
lord13
Part of things
Posts: 536
|
|
|
everyone seems to be getting really 'funny' over this system of charging, yet it is the same across the board of service engineers, be it a plumber, electrician, builder, or a mechanic... to be honest, any service is usually quoted by that industry's 'book time'. And there is always 'room to move' in any quote, have you ever been quoted for a job, and said that it was too expensive, and the mech has gone, 'weeeeeeell I guess I could do it slightly cheaper for you if you leave it with me for a few days, i'll fit it in around my other jobs'....yes of course you have, because the mech wants the work a much as you want the job done, and quoting book time initially means that he can offer you a 'deal' to get the price down and secure the job. If you accept the first quote, then that means you are happy with that price, I just don't see why everyone is getting hot under the collar. I've also been a computer engineer and have been to countless 'jobs' where all I've done is the old 'turn off/turn on' trick, or altered a CMOS setting or other and charged the customer the £100 call out fee ( I didn't set this, it was the firms rate) and the customer has been over the moon that their machine is up and running again.... admittedly this was some time ago but still.... if the customer is happy with the price then that's fine. Apparently.... sorry...i went off topic a bit there....
|
|
]
|
|
froggy
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,099
|
|
Dec 22, 2018 12:58:41 GMT
|
In the long run it sort of evens itself out as I try to absorb the cost of extra labour with snapped /seized stuff rather than add to a quoted price . Some jobs can be way out on book time but the trade soon finds the quickest way to do things so the massive margins are few and far between . 320d timing chains got a huge book time but pretty much everyone I know leaves the engine in and does it from underneath with the box off in 6-7 hrs
|
|
|
|
melle
South West
It'll come out in the wash.
Posts: 1,983
|
|
Dec 22, 2018 23:01:00 GMT
|
|
|
www.saabv4.com'70 Saab 96 V4 "The Devil's Own V4" '77 Saab 95 V4 van conversion project '88 Saab 900i 8V
|
|
|
|
|
But if you've just quote them a price based on expecting x hours of labour, it's not.
And it makes up for the jobs that go the other way where you quoted for y hours and it took twice as long.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But if you've just quote them a price based on expecting x hours of labour, it's not. And it makes up for the jobs that go the other way where you quoted for y hours and it took twice as long. Totally agree there. It's all swings and roundabouts. Some you win,and some you lose. There wouldn't be many businesses still running if they didn't cop a break once in a while to contra the jobs that overran their allocated time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An old pal of mine back in the UK spannered at a dealership that gave a percentage of the difference in price for time saved to the relevant mechanic. So book time = 4 hours, time spent working =2.5, mechanic received x% of difference charged.
He was known by everyone as "Bonus Bob"!
Nothing new under the sun.
|
|
|
|
ChasR
RR Helper
motivation
Posts: 10,189
Club RR Member Number: 170
Member is Online
|
How do mechanics know.....ChasR
@chasr
Club Retro Rides Member 170
|
|
There's something else to bear in mind too.
Speed and quality don't always go hand-in-hand with alot of work, but with some people, it does. Exceptions to the rule.
Going back to the fraud bit, if an experienced and non-bodging like mechanic can do it in 3 hours when a half curse word up mechanic can do it in 5, is it then still fair that the customer sees the lower bill from the better mechanic. After all, he knows what he is doing, is less likely to break something, and of course, sees you on the road quicker.
The truth is there is more to a price regarding labour rates than just time. You can't just draw a line in the sand like that.
As an example with Clio 172:
-Fred @ BTM Performance could do the cambelt and aux belt in 3 hours apparently. He had a zero failure rate for the belts, and was a Renault Specialist, and a very good one at that. He allegedly came from Ferrari. He used to charge around £400 for a belt change, £200 of which was parts. Yes, he did overcharge a little, but here's scenario no. 2
-A local garage quoted me £550 to do the same job; they didn't seem to know of the shortcuts on how to do them, and generally, they didn't seem to do many Clios at all. They made no mention or have knowledge of the correct timing tools to use, a near vital thing to have, and as I said, it's not unheard of for Independant garages to tippex them, only for the customer to hear the sound of valves hitting pistons, thus the engine becoming a 'tapper'.
In theory, surely Fred could have charged more. He after all knew how not to curse word the job up, and for a change, cars under his car didn't come back with 3 new 'problems' free of charge...
You could argue garage no.2 could have charged less, but after all, to them it was an 8 hour job, and as someone said before, bills for garages don't pay themselves. You have tools, electric, rent or a massive mortgage on a place...
|
|
|
|
SiC
Part of things
Posts: 23
|
|
Dec 25, 2018 12:45:32 GMT
|
Do garages even still try tipexing up floating cam pulley engines and is that even a thing still? Those Renault F4R and K4M engines with dephashers have been around for over like 20 years!
I know the 172/182 is more awkward as access is incredibly tight and the cam locking tool needs to fit exactly + tightly. Cheap locking tools aren't that exact. If it doesn't, you loose a fair power. Hence why it's better done at decent specialist.
|
|
Projects/Classics: 1974 MGB GT (it's best not to talk about this one), 1972 Austin 1100 (The Purple Peril that has consumed a lot of fresh metal, welding gas and wire so far) Daily drivers: 2010 Audi A4 (my wife seems to have taken ownership of this), 2008 Audi TT (I hate them, supposed to have been a stop gap but currently stuck with it), Specialized Allez (cycling to work allows me to eat loads of cake)
|
|
|