Rmi vendor

[zuber akoon]

Evening members

So a friend of mine also went through a rebuild with an rmi vendor, he signed a disclaimer because he didnt have enough funds to complete some work on his valvetronic , f20 135i n55, car was in for a spun bearing. Everything was done except the valvetronic fault, long story short he drives the car from the workshop to home about 10kms away, car refuses to start. Engine is seized. Rmi vendor is playing it off, note that few second hand parts was supplied for the rebuild can he take the matter up with the rmi board, has anyone been in this situation. What can be done about this poor workmanship.

Thanks in advance

 

[TurboLlew]

RMI is toothless. Ombud would be the route to follow if there was something to go to them with. There isn't enough information here to say whether that is worth pursuing or not. I don't think its easy to say it is poor workmanship when there are things like used parts involved, budget constraints etc.

What was the original scope of work? Was there a signed quote? Was he building it to keep it or flog it at WBC?
What was actually completed? Was there documentation/evidence (I would assume so if he paid for it?)
What used parts were supplied? Big difference between minor used items and things like used crank/internals/pumps etc.
What warranty was agreed on between the parties if he was going to follow through to completion? (doubtful there would be any from the description)

Is your friend sure that the engine is actually dead and has a third party inspected the car? Stranger things have happened

I doubt your friend will get anywhere with this TBH. It seems like it will become a he-said she-said situation. I have also heard enough of these stories that I can't trust the client OR the builder when they say "everything was done except..." or "just one more week" or "just one thing left". If that was actually true, why not just wait and do the Valvetronic when funds became available? Could be that the builder lied to the client and client believed it but equally possible the guy broke the car thinking he could make it home when he really should have flat-bedded it if there was doubt/a dispute.

The fact that he made him sign the disclaimer can also be viewed as the builder being fed up with the client OR knowing something was going to go south.

 

[TBP88]

RMI is toothless. Ombud would be the route to follow if there was something to go to them with. There isn't enough information here to say whether that is worth pursuing or not. I don't think its easy to say it is poor workmanship when there are things like used parts involved, budget constraints etc.

What was the original scope of work? Was there a signed quote? Was he building it to keep it or flog it at WBC?
What was actually completed? Was there documentation/evidence (I would assume so if he paid for it?)
What used parts were supplied? Big difference between minor used items and things like used crank/internals/pumps etc.
What warranty was agreed on between the parties if he was going to follow through to completion? (doubtful there would be any from the description)

Is your friend sure that the engine is actually dead and has a third party inspected the car? Stranger things have happened

I doubt your friend will get anywhere with this TBH. It seems like it will become a he-said she-said situation. I have also heard enough of these stories that I can't trust the client OR the builder when they say "everything was done except..." or "just one more week" or "just one thing left". If that was actually true, why not just wait and do the Valvetronic when funds became available? Could be that the builder lied to the client and client believed it but equally possible the guy broke the car thinking he could make it home when he really should have flat-bedded it if there was doubt/a dispute.

The fact that he made him sign the disclaimer can also be viewed as the builder being fed up with the client OR knowing something was going to go south.

Either way, your friend opted to sign a disclaimer releasing them from liability against their advise. No way he gets anything out of RMI or the ombud IMHO.

 

[KarshS]

i dont see a way out of this..... Sad situation.

Your friend should have asked for the stuff that has not been completed to be listed. If that was listed you could attempt to fight this if you could prove that the damage could not have been caused by the unfinished items.

Anyway theres alot of unknowns from the info provided so difficult to get a definitive answer in this thread.

 

[TBP88]

Think of it this way.
You go to a doctor - doctor says "do not do this, if you die I cannot be held liable, sign this". You do that thing, and die. Can your family sue the doctor? No. Same logic applies here, pretty much. Unless your friend signed under duress (???) Then he's got no case here really. School fees, sadly. Don't buy a car you can't afford to run even in the worst case scenario.

 

[TurboLlew]

Don't buy a car you can't afford to run even in the worst case scenario.

words to live by

 

[TBP88]

words to live by

Haha, if out of plan, maybe as an amendment. (I doubt anyone can afford to run a new M4, say, in the worst case scenario really!)

 

[swazi85]

RMI are an absolute joke.

They more interested in the fees they collect from the vendors than the workmanship of the RMI approved vender.

He can try the MIOSA, but they aren’t super effective, I had voice recordings, independent assessments and a file of proof of wrong doings done by a garage that ultimately cost me a new engine on a 30,000km wrangler. The garage was absolutely closely and just throwing parts at my expense.

I got awarded the case by miosa and got back 10% of my bill I had to settle in order to get the car back. Never mind the new engine it needed afterwards.

Unfortunately your mate doesn’t have much of a case especially signing the waiver.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk