So what is a 'Full Service History'?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Screenwash may save your life
Next: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e together with the distance?
From: Adrian on 15 Jun 2010 07:11 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> It's about your friend who only occasionally got the car serviced - far >> less frequently than the interval - yet tried to claim that because >> there wasn't anything that wasn't written down, what little there was >> was a "full" service history. >> >> It's not. It's a partial history. > Can we discuss the word full versus the word complete please. In this > context I think it carries the same meaning. The meaning could be > different when referring to volume of something, but in the context of a > set of records I see full being the same as complete... > > A full history is a complete set of records. He has a record of all > services done on the car, in other words a complete or full service > history. There is nothing partial about it - a partial history is an > incomplete set of records. He is not missing any records in his history > of work done, he has a full service history. Go back a step. What's actually _important_ here? The paperwork? No. That merely serves as proof for the actual relevant factor - whether a full set of services have been carried out. They have not. The record shows that the car has not been fully serviced.
From: Brimstone on 15 Jun 2010 07:14 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:87p4btFpkU14(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> Can I suggest we discuss the following example based upon a new >> car with 3 year warranty and a 12k or 12month service interval. The >> driver clocks up slightly below average mileage, but its 'healthy' >> motorway miles, so the car is not subjected to around town wear-and-tear >> and short journey faults: >> >> After 11 months it goes in for its first service with just 10,000 miles >> on the clock. The service is 1 month early as the garage had > > I presume you mean some kind of special offer. Fine. It's been serviced a > tad early. No problem, but that sets the expectation for the next service. > >> At 2 years old (23 months), it goes in for its second (24k) service, >> but has only 21,000 miles on the clock. > > 12mo since previous service, so it's due. No prob. > >> At 3 years old (35 months), it goes in for its 36k service, but has only >> 30,000 miles on the clock. > > Again, 12mo since previous service, it's due. Again, no prob. > >> This is the last service done under warranty. The car is thoroughly >> checked and a few warranty items are replaced. As the car was as good as >> new after this final warranty service > > Eh? It's now a 3yo, 30k mile car. The fact it has a full history does not > mean it's "as good as new". > >> the owner then drives the car for more than a year so... >> >> The 4th (48k) service takes at 50 months old and 45,000 miles. > > 15k and 15mo since previous service. Overdue on both counts. FSH is now > out the window. It has service history, but no longer full. > >> The 5th (60k) service happens at 66 months old and 58,000 miles (6 >> months after schedule, but 2,000 miles under schedule). > > Nope. 16mo & 13k since previous service. Overdue on both counts. > >> The 6th (72k) service happens at 80 months old and 69,000 miles (8 >> months after schedule, but 3,000 miles under schedule > > Mileage is irrelevant. It's 14 mo since previous service. Overdue. > >> He has a full record of all services and all work done, so there is no >> disputing that it is a full history of all services done, but as it does >> not exactly comply with the manufacturers recommended service interval, >> is this a "Full Service History" or not? Its certainly not a partial >> service history or plain "service history". > > It is not FSH. The car's servicing has been consistently lagging behind > the schedule for over half it's life. By your account, "full" has a very different meaning than most people would use. The description above is covered by a phrase such as "Services completed but not in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule". (I'm open to making it less wordy.)
From: Brimstone on 15 Jun 2010 07:18 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:87p5emFpkU16(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>> It's about your friend who only occasionally got the car serviced - far >>> less frequently than the interval - yet tried to claim that because >>> there wasn't anything that wasn't written down, what little there was >>> was a "full" service history. >>> >>> It's not. It's a partial history. > >> Can we discuss the word full versus the word complete please. In this >> context I think it carries the same meaning. The meaning could be >> different when referring to volume of something, but in the context of a >> set of records I see full being the same as complete... >> >> A full history is a complete set of records. He has a record of all >> services done on the car, in other words a complete or full service >> history. There is nothing partial about it - a partial history is an >> incomplete set of records. He is not missing any records in his history >> of work done, he has a full service history. > > Go back a step. What's actually _important_ here? > > The paperwork? No. That merely serves as proof for the actual relevant > factor - whether a full set of services have been carried out. They have > not. The record shows that the car has not been fully serviced. AIUI the car has been fully serviced, by the owner not a dealer. If the owner has made entries in the servicing log showing when and what has been serviced, with evidence of parts purchased, then it has a full service history.
From: GT on 15 Jun 2010 07:16 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_ZydnaQT8ovdw4rRnZ2dnUVZ7rGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message > news:hv7lcf$nq0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:27:27 +0100 >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>If you didn't make such stupid responses to simple statements of fact >>>then >>>you wouldn't get the reactions that you do. >> >> Its not a statement of fact. > > In what way is "A fitter is a highly skilled tradesman trained to make new > parts." not a simple statement of facts. > >>The word is used by most people to describe >> a person who "fits" parts. > > Only in the context of motor vehicles. Most people are also aware that > modern "mechanics" do not have the skills of their predecessors. > >>>Fitters don't/didn't work in tatty back street garages. As I said, >>>they're >>>highly trained tradesman/craftsman. >> >> So where do they work then? Do tell. Because they're certainly not down >> at >> any main dealers I've been to. Are they at the company HQs busily >> designing >> and building prototypes? No, that would be designers and engineers. Are >> they on the production line perhaps bolting bits of car together then? >> > Fitter work in all areas of engineering. They are the people who make > things. My twopenneth: A cleaner cleans things. A driver drives things. A manufacturer manufactuers things. A parts engineer engineers parts. A parts fitter fits parts. A fitter doesn't make parts.
From: Adrian on 15 Jun 2010 07:23
"GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> This is the last service done under warranty. The car is thoroughly >>> checked and a few warranty items are replaced. As the car was as good >>> as new after this final warranty service >> Eh? It's now a 3yo, 30k mile car. The fact it has a full history does >> not mean it's "as good as new". > Nothing to do with the service history, but the fact that all worn parts > have been replaced under warranty, so from that respect the car is as > good as new. Since when did a warranty cover normal wear & tear items? Never. It covers manufacturing and material defects only. >>> He has a full record of all services and all work done, so there is no >>> disputing that it is a full history of all services done, but as it >>> does not exactly comply with the manufacturers recommended service >>> interval, is this a "Full Service History" or not? Its certainly not a >>> partial service history or plain "service history". >> It is not FSH. The car's servicing has been consistently lagging behind >> the schedule for over half it's life. > But the service history is full - it might not have been all on schedule > and might not comply with the manufacturer's recommendations, but the > record history is full - as in nothing missing! See my other reply. What's the important bit - the paperwork or the servicing? |