********* Business Practice

1. Vehicle was submitted for attention. 2. Symptoms were that the engine started ... ran sweetly ... but had very little power ... and would battle on inclines. 3. These symptoms, as any competent mechanic will confirm,, indicate low compression. 4. A very simple compression test was indicated. This was NOT done. 5. Instead Hatfield provided a very detailed quote TO RECTIFY the problem of no power which we accepted. 6. On proceeding to rectify the problem they then discovered that a major engine overhaul was needed as the Piston Rings were done for. 7. Note that this should have been diagnosed by the very simple compression test set out in 4 above. 8. As purchasing a reconditioned engine was at least R12,000 less than Hatfield's "new quote" to overhaul the engine, we elected to replace the engine. 9. Hatfield now insisted that payment be made for the work done "finding the fault" with the piston rings ... that should have been diagnosed within just a few minutes at the very start. 10. Hatfield did not accept that they were actually contractually bound by their initial quote and could not expect us to fund the WASTED LABOUR COSTS, incurred as a result of their initial *********** miss-diagnosis. 11. Hatfield held us to ransom by refusing permit us recovery of the vehicle and profited by *********ing us to the tune of nearly R,3000.