[Resolved] 124 Works - Kirkham Dispute

[alfie07]

Before I begin with the tragic events of my experience with 124 Works of Kirkham, I would like to explain that I am the owner of the vehicle and other half of the previous posts concerning the C220 Sports. http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/engin...20-sports.html

I would also like to state that I am making this post purely in the public interest, to enable other members to make an informed choice before taking their vehicle to this self acclaimed Mercedes Specialist.
You will see from one of Mr Walker’s post having completed the work, he says ‘its really a shame to charge a customer’. Well my response to that is, **** Turpin wore a mask.
Contrary to what Mr Walker states, the car was with him for nearly two weeks, and within days of getting it back it was obvious that things weren’t right as the engine was losing oil (all over the drive) and was noisy.
From then on in, the vehicle was returned on numerous occasions with engine noise and oil loss. It was suggested on an early return that possibly the exhaust needed to be replaced of which Mr Walker agreed to undertake. The cost of this was paid separately from the main bill. However, within two days of its return the engine noise and oil loss were still apparent, and the exhaust was hanging off. The vehicle was taken to a local garage for them to refit the exhaust to enable us to return it once again.
In our early discussions with Mr Walker we informed him that we had been advised that the variable cams needed investigation. Mr Walker however, rubbished this. On one of the early returns, he removed the cams from my vehicle and replaced them with ones off his wife’s car, and there was still an obvious noise from that area. We have since got our original cams back, but sadly, we have had it confirmed by a Mercedes specialist, that these too are now damaged. This has been blamed on incorrect fitting and/or procedure, and it has been explained that you cannot interchange cams only - you apparently have to change everything associated with them as well, otherwise, what has happened to my car, will occur.
On the last occasion in March, I was again without the vehicle for a week and on its return it had to make a 500 mile round trip, which resulted in the vehicle standing on the hard shoulder with smoke coming from the rear. On the outward journey there was an obvious slipping of the gearbox, not noticeable before he did the oil check.
Yet again the vehicle was returned under warranty to 124 Works for inspection. Mr Walker admitted there was a problem and offered to replace the bottom end.
It was at this stage that I began to question his capabilities and we had several heated discussions on the telephone. My partner asked Mr Walker why there was oil all over the drive, when previously this hadn’t been a problem with the vehicle, to which he replied, ‘I must have done something wrong’. One such occasion resulted in Mr Walker shouting down the phone at my partner and then hanging up on her. She ended up having to ring him back to try and get some form of resolution.
The following day, we received a call from him to say that he had booked the vehicle into Mercedes at Preston for the following Tuesday at 10.00am for an independent inspection. On the Monday, I rang Mercedes Preston to enquire if the inspection would be a mechanical one, only to discover that not only was it a diagnostic only inspection that would show no mechanical problems, but according to their records, it had been booked in for the previous Friday and not the Tuesday as I had been led to believe.
When we advised Mr Walker, he then suggested an independent AA inspection. We realised however, that as we would not have access to the report finding, we would be better paying for the same inspection ourselves.
I was staggered at the report findings, which states as follows:

‘does not compare with an engine having undergone costly repairs’
‘as a result of its present condition, it is not advisable to run the vehicle as major consequential failure could result’.
I advised Mr Walker that I had no confidence in his workmanship and asked him to consider some form of refund as the vehicle was no longer usable.
I declined his offer of an alternative garage, as they were unknown to me.
Mr Walker was not forthcoming with any refund, and it was at this point that we suggested it went through as an insurance claim. He said he would look at his policy and ring me after the weekend.
When we hadn’t heard from him, I rang to ask for the details. He gave me a number and contact name, only to discover after another week, that he had given me details of his car insurance and not liability insurance.
I went back to Mr Walker for the correct details. I contacted NIG liability, who were very helpful and advised we submit the claim. Another two weeks passed before we discovered that Mr Walker was refusing to fill in the necessary paperwork for the claim to proceed.
Prior to the vehicle going into 124 Works, it was more than capable of covering the mileage required of it. Apart from its original water loss problem, the vehicle was in extremely good condition overall and I felt warranted the cost of repair.
The vehicle has done less than 5,000 since the work has been carried out and is off road in an unusable state.
As it became apparent that this was going to be a very long drawn out affair, the decision was taken to get a replacement vehicle.
The vehicle is now Sorned and I am acting on legal advice.
This is not the first time this garage has appeared on this forum with ‘bad press’, the posts are there if you search for them. Sadly I discovered them too late for them to be beneficial to me.

 

[jaymanek]

Well first of all let me say that AA inspections are not worth they money.. they ALWAYS scare the customer... they have to so that they dont have to pay out in the event of a failure. You would have been better to get a report from another garage or main dealer.

What do we think the issue actually is now.. Surely a second hand engine would be the best thing... Plenty of cheap W202's around..

 

[219]

A worrying tale .

It would be interesting to hear Mr. Walker's version of events , if he cares to comment .

 

[Dieselman]

Contrary to what Mr Walker states, the car was with him for nearly two weeks, and within days of getting it back it was obvious that things weren’t right as the engine was losing oil (all over the drive) and was noisy.

In our early discussions with Mr Walker we informed him that we had been advised that the variable cams needed investigation. Mr Walker however, rubbished this. On one of the early returns, he removed the cams from my vehicle and replaced them with ones off his wife’s car, and there was still an obvious noise from that area. We have since got our original cams back, but sadly, we have had it confirmed by a Mercedes specialist, that these too are now damaged. This has been blamed on incorrect fitting and/or procedure, and it has been explained that you cannot interchange cams only - you apparently have to change everything associated with them as well, otherwise, what has happened to my car, will occur.
On the last occasion in March, I was again without the vehicle for a week and on its return it had to make a 500 mile round trip, which resulted in the vehicle standing on the hard shoulder with smoke coming from the rear. On the outward journey there was an obvious slipping of the gearbox, not noticeable before he did the oil check.
Yet again the vehicle was returned under warranty to 124 Works for inspection. Mr Walker admitted there was a problem and offered to replace the bottom end.
‘as a result of its present condition, it is not advisable to run the vehicle as major consequential failure could result’.

I declined his offer of an alternative garage, as they were unknown to me.
Prior to the vehicle going into 124 Works, it was more than capable of covering the mileage required of it. Apart from its original water loss problem, the vehicle was in extremely good condition overall and I felt warranted the cost of repair.

Without getting into the semantics of dealing with W124 works over the subsequent problems, I would like to ask about some parts of your post.

Were the camshafts not noisy before the visit to W124 works, otherwise why had it been advised to look at them and you do say they were still noisy after replacement.
For the original cams to have a noise were they not already damaged by the engine or oil quality or starvation? The original report of the engine was pretty well worn with oval bores and scored big ends. That's not an entirely healthy engine. To what extent was it agreed to recondition it, a full, no expense spared re-con or a budget bottom end job?

For the gearbox, was the work carried out a simple level check or more work above and beyond that. It's hard to see how a level check would cause a leak, but obviously further works could have done.
Do you know what 'to replace the bottom end' means.? Is this the gearbox sump or gasket.?

Is the AA report any more specific than to say running the car could cause catastrophic failure.?

I'm not saying you might not have a valid issue, but it's also possible that some of the problems are not directly due to the work carried out by W124 works, which is where the sticking point may be.

 

[jaymanek]

Definately need more facts here.. The issues seem to be too vague and from what it seems only specific work was done and now there are other issues that seem unrelated.

 

[Ian B Walker]

Mr Todds partner contacted me with reference to a problem they were having with their C220 Sport. It was agreed to bring it to the workshop for a diagnostic check of the problem. We conducted the following. A Leakdown test, Compression test and a radiator gas test. Upon the findings it was mutually agreed that an engine rebuild was required. The vehicle was brought to me on a Sunday evening and left with me to work on. I was told that it had to be finished by the following Saturday. The engine was removed and stripped down on the Monday. Parts were ordered. My machine shop advised me that one piston was suspect. i notified the customer of the fact and gained authority to replace. During the re build 6 tappet buckets were renewed. (all I could source in a short period of time). The car was returned to the customer by the Saturday. Shortly after the customer complained that the engine was noisy. He also called me a liar stating that we had not put anti freeze in the radiator. We had and always do. The engine being under warranty we agreed to take it back. We renewed the remaining tappet buckets and noticing that the camshafts were slightly worn replaced them with ones from my wifes car. As a matter of note, camshaft bearing caps remain with the cylinder head, not the camshafts. We were convinced that all issues had been resolved. Mr Todd called again and said there was a vibrating issue. I had previously mentioned that I thought that was the exhaust rattling. We changed the exhaust. I was criticized for not putting exhaust paste on the manifold to down pipe joint. That is a no no when working with cats. I received another phone call to tell me that the car engine was leaking oil. Once again we took the car back and changed the rocker cover gasket, engine oil breather pipes and nipped the head down. A while later Mr Todd phoned to say that there was blue smoke behind his car. I asked him to pull over and check the oil level. This he did and stated that there was no oil loss. I have asked to examine this engine and been told that under no circumstances am I allowed to touch it again. I arranged for Mercedes Benz of Preston to examine the engine. Mr Todd cancelled it and was rather abusive to Mb. I arranged for Naze Lane Garage (German car specialists) to look at it, he declined this offer. In a final attempt to meet his needs I suggested the AA do an inspection. He declined this offer too. He wanted his original camshafts back, we arranged to change them for him on the Wednesday. On the Monday he appeared and asked if he could remove his camshafts from my wifes car where they had been running quite well and put them in his car. On the understanding that camshafts would be returned to me as soon as possible I agreed. That was 9 weeks ago. I am led to believe that an independent engine report has been conducted. I am not allowed access to this. Given that a report is available and that I cannot view it, why should I be liable for a refund? I have no proof other than verbal that anything is wrong. A further point. The car is / has being driven about at speeds in excess of 90mph. My apprentice has been driven in this car, down the M6 at speeds above the legal limit. Mr Todd also stated to my insurance agent that a 700 mile round trip had been done in 10 hours with a 20 min break. I have also sought legal advise.

 

[recycled]

I thought a replacement engine would have been the way to go.

 

[Ian B Walker]

I thought a replacement engine would have been the way to go.

He needed a guarantee and I will not guarantee a second hand engine, Who knows what sort of life it may have had.

 

[recycled]

He needed a guarantee and I will not guarantee a second hand engine, Who knows what sort of life it may have had.

I am not blaming. you. He should have got one himself (reconditioned) with its own guarantee.
From the state of the engine i think it may have been on its last legs.his first post was he wanted a replacement or rebuild

 

[alfie07]

First of all, it was Mr Walker’s choice to have the AA Inspection, not mine, and secondly, a second hand engine probably was the best way to go, but again I trusted Mr Walker’s advice, to have it rebuilt.
In response to his mention of the 700 mile journey, the car done a 630 mile round trip in approx 10 hours BEFORE the £2,000 engine rebuild, and yet following the rebuild it was not capable of doing a 500 mile round trip in a period of one week without smoke coming from the rear. As for oval bores and oil like treacle. I can honestly state that the oil was not like treacle as the oil cost me £70 at Merc dealers less than 4000 miles before the said rebuild and was not, as described by Mr Walker. Regarding the oval bores, I had no knowledge of this until I read it in a reply to a post by Dieselman.
I was invited on the following Saturday evening to go and hear the vehicle start up for the first time, but was disappointed, as the vehicle had no exhaust fitted etc and was unable to hear the engine. So therefore how could the vehicle have been rebuilt and handed back to me within a week, as claimed.

 

[Dieselman]

Regarding the oval bores, I had no knowledge of this until I read it in a reply to a post by Dieselman.

It was in the thread posted at the time though and along with requiring a new piston, which you were asked to approve, does indicate a fair degree of general wear.

With any major repair there will be a period of shakedown afterwards. Maybe there just wasn't time for that to happen properly.

 

[Shelaghb]

I feel, as the other half in this sorry tale, I must respond the post made by Relex. Whilst I can appreciate what you are saying, I must say this, we have tried over many many weeks to resolve this issue with Mr Walker.
Indeed, quite the opposite. He has led us down one blind alley after another, first giving us incorrect insurance details and then having us go to the trouble of submitting our details to his liability insurance, only to then reneged on that.
Giving us incorrect dates to take the vehicle to MB Preston - and I can categorically state now, we did not cancel the appointment. It was only by chance that we rang
MB Preston on the Monday, as stated before, to ask them to confirm what test the vehicle was booked in for, and was told it should have been with them the previous Friday - and how can I categorically state this, because it was me who made the call, so the statement saying Alfie was abusive towards them beggars believe.
It is refreshing however, to know that he is still out there, as we have been waiting for a response to our written request asking him what his intentions are now, but as yet have had no reply.
May I also say to the people who have responded as happy customers of Mr Walker, please ask yourselves this. If you had spent £2,000 and was now sat with a vehicle that you had been advised not to drive, would you be happy.
Whilst I can understand the forum members not appreciating posts such as these, I must say this, I am very saddened by the events described - we are not people who enjoy this sort of thing. We are a car down, £2,000 lighter, and at the end of the day was merely looking for someone to take charge of a problem we had, that we were unable to deal with ourselves.
Regarding the false statement claims in any future legal proceeding, you can rest assured we have no worries there.

 

[Sp!ke]

How many miles has this W202 done and what would the cost of a eqiuvalent but sound replacement 202 be I wonder?

 

[alfie07]

It was in the thread posted at the time though and along with requiring a new piston, which you were asked to approve, does indicate a fair degree of general wear.

With any major repair there will be a period of shakedown afterwards. Maybe there just wasn't time for that to happen properly.

The said piston came from no1 cyl the alleged oval bores were numbers 2 and 3 and had a small nick out the top nothing to do with oval bores. As regards a shakedown period is 5000 miles too soon?

 

[Shelaghb]

What ever has gone on should be kept between the parties concerned as they know the full story.

I'm as spike though, how much was it worth doing the work on the car in the first place?

what ever I hope you get it sorted.

if he didnt think it was worth it it he wouldn't have spent close on 2500 grand thecar is mint

 

[Dieselman]

The said piston came from no1 cyl the alleged oval bores were numbers 2 and 3 and had a small nick out the top nothing to do with oval bores. As regards a shakedown period is 5000 miles too soon?

I would expect problems to manifest themselves a long while before 5000 miles, so a 5000 mile shakedown would be rather a long time, other than for an internal mechanical fault, which would be possibly covered by the warrantee as a defect.

The piston and bores were just an indication of the original condition of the engine, just to show how the cams and tappets might be worn prior to the works as opposed to after.

I haven't said you don't have some issue to be resolved, but it would appear there seems to be some difference of opinion as to what should or shouldn't be covered under the warrantee and the works charged for, hence my earlier question regarding whether this was a full recondition or a bottom end job.

Putting aside the oil leaks, is the engine servicable, if not why not.?
Does it run, does it smoke, is there full power, what exactly does the report say.?

 

[Dieselman]

ascertain all faults

Which are what exactly at present.?
Have the oil leaks been rectified and is there anything now other than the noisy cams.?

 

[Dieselman]

that is what the OP is disputing i think. The posts seem to suggest new faults have appeared

I don't see new faults listed, am I missing something.
I read oil leaks, an episode of as yet unexplained oil smoke (can happen with new/rebuilt engines, but worth checking the breather system out) and possibly noisy cams, with the old ones showing signs of wear. Were new cams and followers budgeted for as part of the job.?

The report indicates catastrophic failure is imminent. What.?

Without a definative list of current issues it will be difficult for the parties to engage in meaningful conversation towards a resolution.
If there have been previous faults that have been rectified and were annoying, but minor, they shouldn't be listed as ongoing.

 

[paris2463]

Should Ian Walker have not realised when no 1 piston had fault and 2/3 bores being oval full recon was required ie rebore etc this is VERY basic engineering spec new piston on old bore a no no !! removing ring at top of bore will lead to oil burn not a good long term ideal as a know doubt experienced mech engineer . could this not be resolved Ian by finding a good engine to replace now unpractical engine to replace at cost price I do note faults on both sides BUT it was undertaken by Ian to overhaul existing there was option when report from reconditioners to revise to recon unit . Maybe the loss on one job is better than loss of customers PS this comes from 35yrs of running successful engineering company I do hope this can be sorted as Ian does contribute a lot to forum and all must be allowed to voice problems with main dealers as well as inds

 

[Dieselman]

Should Ian Walker have not realised when no 1 piston had fault and 2/3 bores being oval full recon was required ie rebore etc this is VERY basic engineering spec new piston on old bore a no no !!

I thought the engine had been to a machine shop for boring and reworking as required.
Am I wrong.?

As far as the smoke goes, new engines can exhibit such traits. I've had one brand new Vauxhall engine go South like this and an Ex-Boss had an Audi 2.8 that did this two or three times in fine style in the first 6-8000 miles then never again.

This is why I'm interested to find what the actual remaining faults are.

As well as checking oil consumption it would be worth checking the compression and leak down and the breather system, but it might have rectified itself already now if it was say a sticky ring.

It may have just been oil residue on the exhaust from one of the leaks.