Dated 06th March 2003
WITNESS STATEMENT OF FACT
I, Peter Croney, proprietor of Scoobysport, of Unit 28 Nobel Square, Burnt Mills Industrial Estate, Basildon, Essex, will say as follows:
1. I make this statement in support of my defence to the action brought by Mr. Smith.
2. I have today, the 6th March 2003, received the Claimant's witness statement and a witness statement by Mr John Pye. I make the observation that neither witness statements are headed properly, neither are signed or dated and neither have a statement of truth. Indeed they are not even paragraph numbered. Despite these omissions, I will assume that they are the Claimant's witness statements.
3. This claim relates to work that I agreed to carry out on behalf of the Claimant. This work initially altering the gearing and then subsequently agreeing to alter the differentials and lighten the fly wheel. There were other items but these are the main items which are in dispute.
4. In terms of the dispute about the altering of the gearing, I did not say to the Claimant that I had altered the gearing on cars before. However, I did tell him that I thought it could be done as I had spoken to a specialist who indicated that they thought it could be done and therefore I agreed to do it. The specialist in question was Mr Dangerfield, the Chief Gearbox Engineer for the Subaru World Rally Team. Mr Dangerfield was the most knowledgeable Subaru gearbox builder in the UK and had access to information not available to persons outside of Subaru or the World Rally Team. Mr Dangerfield built and repaired gearboxes for my company, at his place of work in the evenings and his work had always been excellent. I felt confident in relying on his opinion.
5. I accept that the attempt we made to alter the gearing which was done by Mr Dangerfield, a specialist on my behalf, did not work out.
6. I accept that after discussions with Mr. Smith it was agreed that we would change the differentials and again I accept that the work which was done in that respect did not come up to standard which it should have done. That is the reason therefore why I paid the Claimant �1,158.00 being the invoice of John Pye's in respect of remedial work to the gear box and the differentials.
7. In terms of the fly wheel, again whilst I do not accept the Claimant's comments that the fly wheel was not lightened to the amount I had agreed, and I do not accept his comments as to the porting, I agreed to and did refund him a sum of �660.00 in respect of these two items as a goodwill gesture, in full and final settlement of the work carried out.
8. Therefore in respect of any defective work that was carried out on his behalf by me/my firm, I have as fas as I am concerned, settled in full with the Claimant.
9. The problems arose not through anything I had done wrong but through problems with sub contractors, but I fully accepted that the problems, particularly with regard to the differentials should not have occurred and accept that they caused problems with the gearbox. I have therefore, as I have said, paid the invoice of John Pye of �1,158.00. In addition I paid the Claimant �660.00 as compensation in respect of the fly wheel and porting which I carried out.
10. What I do not accept and will not accept is that the problems with the differentials and the gearing caused any problem with the braking of this vehicle. The fact that the Claimant allegedly spent �1,448.66 plus VAT on upgrading the brakes has absolutely nothing to do with me or the work that I did.
11. It is well known both to the Claimant, Mr Pye and to me and indeed everybody involved in these cars that the standard braking which is supplied with them is inadequate. It is very normal to upgrade the braking to cope with the original performance and indeed if one enchances the power of the car even more, as Mr. Smith has done, it is inevitable that he would have to upgrade the brakes as he has done. I therefore do not accept at all his request for payment of BR Developments invoice in relation to the brakes.
12. Furthermore, I do not accept that it was necessary on behalf on Mr. Smith to have three tests carried out in relation to the four wheel alignment. That is the invoice of Power Station dated 5th April 2002, the invoice of Mac's Garage (Iikley) dated 13th June 2002 and the invoice of Power Station dated 27th September 2002. All of those relate to the four wheel alignment and I do not accept that it needed to be done on four occasions. I would concede that it may have needed to be done on one occasion, but not four times.
13. In relation to the invoice for Power Station dated the 28th June 2002 this again is nothing to do with the work I carried out. This invoice relates to handling modifications and upgrading the handling of the vehicle. This was done not as a result of anything I did or did not do to the vehicle, but as a result of the Claimant upgrading the vehicle and in particular fitting an anti lift caster kit, heavy duty rollbar mount and camber bolts. I do not accept repsonsibility for these items and furthermore I note from reading the invoice that yet again there is further computerised four wheel alignment. This is the fourth time that this has been carried out and I do not accept liability for that.
14. Going through what I suppose is meant to be the witness statement of Ronald Harvey Smith, I would reply as follows:
a) I have already accepted responsibilty for the incorrect differentials and the fact that caused gear box problems and have paid for them.
b) Turning to paragraph 10, this is untrue, I did not tell the Claimant that I had increased the 5th gear ratio on these cars in the past, but told him that I had spoken to someone and believed it could be done.
c) In relation to paragraph 11, the reason there was no limited slip differential put on was because it was a UK spec model differential which do not have a limited slip diff. I advised Mr. Smith that the differential would be a UK spec differential.
d) In relation to paragraph 12, I relied on specialist sub contractors and I have already accepted liability for this item.
e) The same applies to paragraph 13.