Might recover costs in case of old tie rods passed off as new

Eric lai

SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Q: In April 2008, I took my 2002 Ford F-150 to a franchised repair shop to have a broken tie rod replaced. On the advice of their mechanic, I had them replace all four tie rods with new ones.

In August 2009, another garage noticed one tie was rod about to fall off, so they replaced it and sent me to an alignment shop.

The alignment shop wouldn't let me off the hoist until they replaced the remaining two tie rods on the other side of the truck, because they were in such bad shape.

I ended up taking the four supposedly new tie rods that the original shop had installed to a Ford dealer. They said one was new and the other three were clearly used.

I have never received an explanation of why three used tie rods were put into my vehicle by the original shop, nor have I received any compensation.

I feel I have a strong case should I opt to pursue legal action.

A: Toronto lawyer Greg Chang (bcbarristers.com) replies:

The original shop is being accused of fraud by not replacing all four tie rods as they had been paid to do.

As this problem was discovered 17 months after installation by two different shops – without the original shop having a chance to respond – the customer has to prove in court that the sequence of events which transpired was reasonable.

The actual four tie rods at issue would have to be entered into evidence.

The second shop involved would be asked to identify the tie rod and testify that they removed them immediately as being unsafe – thus not allowing the customer to have the original shop respond when the problem was first discovered.

The second shop would also need to explain why they didn't inspect the tie rods on the other side of the truck that the alignment shop said were also unsafe.

The alignment shop would be asked to identify the two tie rods they removed as being immediately unfit for use.

Given the severity of the situation (that is, dangerously unsafe), it would be reasonable for the mechanics at both shops to be able to recall this case.

To counter suggestions that the four tie rods simply decayed by "normal wear and tear," all garages involved, as well as the customer's dealership, can attempt to provide their opinion on that issue.

If a lawyer were handling the case, they may seek an expert opinion on the issue before going to court.

Assuming that the vehicle is working well now and did not suffer from using old tie rods for 17 months, then the customer would sue for reimbursement of the cost of either the April 2008 or both August 2009 installations, as well as associated expenses and the cost of the small claims court lawsuit.

Eric Lai adds:

Head office of the original franchised repair shop was contacted for information on this matter, but no reply was received.

Chang adds that as the vehicle went to several shops before the tie rods were ultimately replaced, each may blame the other in court and vice-versa.

Email non-mechanical questions to Eric Lai at wheels@thestar.ca.

More videos from Wheels.ca and our partners