Your input on bill 203: "Motor Vehicle Repair Pricing Protection for Consumers"

[CUG]

You can view the bill here:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/ISYS/LADDA...8_bill-203.pdf

You can submit your recommendations here:

http://www.assembly.ab.ca/committees...3/Bill203.html

[Maxt]

Its not the service end of the industry where the real trouble is, its the sale side of the industry. Autotreadz comes to mind.

[CUG]

^ I was so happy when I heard the CEO had Canada wide warrants.

[schocker]

So if they do repair it, they can't charge for any diagnosing time/work?

(3) A repairer shall not charge a fee for an estimate if the work or repairs in question are authorized and carried out

[toastgremlin]

Originally posted by Maxt
Its not the service end of the industry where the real trouble is, its the sale side of the industry. Autotreadz comes to mind.

With AMVIC in the state that it was in, no wonder dealerships were able to get away with murder. I can't believe some of the stuff I've heard.

[CUG]

Originally posted by schocker
So if they do repair it, they can't charge for any diagnosing time/work?

Correct. They can only charge if they diagnose and the customer leaves.

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by schocker
So if they do repair it, they can't charge for any diagnosing time/work?

Originally posted by CUG
Correct. They can only charge if they diagnose and the customer leaves.

This is setting the precedent for parts replacement only technicians to run wild.

There are some diagnosis' that require partial disassemble, a few hours of circuit testing, or multiple road tests to confirm the issue.

I agree that we need better standards in our industry, but some if not all of the suggestions are just out to lunch.

[jacky4566]

Man I like these changes.
Things I'm seeing:
57.2(1) No repairer shall charge a consumer for any work
performed on or repairs done to a motor vehicle unless the repairer
first gives the consumer an estimate in accordance with any
requirements which may be prescribed by the regulations.
57.5(1) No repairer shall charge, for work or repairs for which an
estimate was given, an amount that exceeds the estimate by more
than 10 per cent.
57.11(1) On the repair of a motor vehicle, a repairer is deemed to
warrant all new or reconditioned parts installed and the labour
required to install them for a minimum of 90 days or 5,000
kilometres, whichever comes first.

[hampstor]

It's all about accepting risk and liability. If you want someone else to take on risk and liability, be prepared to pay for it.

- Want the shop to cover 90 days of warranty? Sure - they'll just charge more to offset the risk of taking that on.
- Can't exceed estimate by more than 10%? Pad the estimate.

I know the intent is well meaning, but tinkering with business at this level always has unintended consequences when the market corrects for the new legislation.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by jacky4566


57.11(1) On the repair of a motor vehicle, a repairer is deemed to
warrant all new or reconditioned parts installed and the labour
required to install them for a minimum of 90 days or 5,000
kilometres, whichever comes first.

This is going to drive up the cost of parts and labour. I am not in the auto trade, but in my trade,we warranty workmanship but we don't cover the labour to replace defective parts, the customer has to pay the labour to change defective parts that are warrantied, otherwise we end up supplying free labour for manufacturer's crappy machine/parts and or the customer poor choice of machine/parts.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Maxt

This is going to drive up the cost of parts and labour. I am not in the auto trade, but in my trade,we warranty workmanship but we don't cover the labour to replace defective parts, the customer has to pay the labour to change defective parts that are warrantied, otherwise we end up supplying free labour for manufacturer's crappy machine/parts and or the customer poor choice of machine/parts.

That makes sense, but is an argument for both sides. A crappy part that breaks down doesn't just cost the mechanic but also monetary loss, downtime and hassle for the consumer that now has to bring their car to the shop yet again for the same issue when they could be doing something else. If it's such an problem, then both the consumer and mechanics should be demanding higher quality parts from manufacturers that come with better warranties as well. Even if the cost goes up, you end up saving money in the long run if your repair is sure to last. The biggest cost of most all repair jobs is labor NOT parts. So if you spend $100 on a part and $500 for labor (which is pretty common), buying a higher quality part for $150 plus the same $500 labor is a very small additional cost for a much better result. Is it not?

[Maxt]

Originally posted by BigMass


That makes sense, but is an argument for both sides. A crappy part that breaks down doesn't just cost the mechanic but also monetary loss, downtime and hassle for the consumer that now has to bring their car to the shop yet again for the same issue when they could be doing something else. If it's such an problem, then both the consumer and mechanics should be demanding higher quality parts from manufacturers that come with better warranties as well. Even if the cost goes up, you end up saving money in the long run if your repair is sure to last. The biggest cost of most all repair jobs is labor NOT parts. So if you spend $100 on a part and $500 for labor (which is pretty common), buying a higher quality part for $150 plus the same $500 labor is a very small additional cost for a much better result. Is it not?

Is it the mechanics fault if you buy a car thats prone to eating a certain part due to design? Will you accept the labour cost if you choose the cheaper part? Sometimes you have no choice of quality, OEMs seem to only provide parts for 12 years or so. Some of the auto mechanics will have to say if labour is more than parts, in my trade, parts is more than labour 99% of the time.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Maxt

Is it the mechanics fault if you buy a car thats prone to eating a certain part due to design? Will you accept the labour cost if you choose the cheaper part? Sometimes you have no choice of quality, OEMs seem to only provide parts for 12 years or so. Some of the auto mechanics will have to say if labour is more than parts, in my trade, parts is more than labour 99% of the time.

I agree that is a concern, but 90 days is short. If something fails within 90s days what are the odds that it's a part failure vs an installation/mechanic failure? I would love to see statistics on that. Of course a warranty of 1-2 years would be unreasonable because then your concerns would almost always be in play. But 90s days must have some significance in terms of % of failures between parts and fault of mechanic. Whenever regulations come up it's always an issue between big chains or scammers trying to take advantage vs honest hard working mom and pop shops just barely scraping by.

[Maxt]

I just had a set of wheel bearing units that lasted 60 days, nothing to do with the install. Bad parts happen, I get dead electric motors, even whole a/c units DOA out of the box. Its just unreasonable to be saddling the mechanic with the labour costs when the mechanic has no control over so many variables. By all means workmanship has to be and is warranted, but covering the labour on defective parts is just going to mean the mechanics will start having to charge twice the labour to cover the risk if it becomes law to.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Maxt
but covering the labour on defective parts is just going to mean the mechanics will start having to charge twice the labour to cover the risk if it becomes law to.

Truth.

[Gestalt]

Is an estimate and diagnostics the same thing? I don't believe that will stick.

And Dealers still openly and readily violate Amvics rules. We bought a car recently, and every major dealer violated the "the advertised price must be the all in price" rule, adding fees and costs. And we are talking the big dealers.

[Gestalt]

The rule is redundant. Any quality shop already warrants parts and labour for a year. This is more targeting the shadey.

And they cant pad a labour bill in terms of hours. That is already well defined. They can try and pad the labour rate.

What it may counter is the use of substandard jobber parts, and the really shadey shops, using foreign labour, with substandard training and 'signed off' apprentice hours.

Parts wise, there is some really bad quality out there that they pay less than a third of a quality part, but sell it to customers at only a small discount over name brand or OEM. These parts almost exclusively are designed to just make it through the warranty period, but given Alberta roads, for example, the suspension parts like tie rod ends and ball joints rarely make it.

[CompletelyNumb]

Good shops already warranty their own work.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Gestalt
And they cant pad a labour bill in terms of hours. That is already well defined. They can try and pad the labour rate.

How do you pad a labour rate?

[EK 2.0]

Originally posted by Gestalt

The rule is redundant. Any quality shop already warrants parts and labour for a year. This is more targeting the shadey.

Toyota warranty is 2 years/40,000 kms on OEM parts when installed at a Toyota dealer....