JJ Engineering Beckenham

[porscheguy911]

Was about to give JJ Engineering in Beckenham a call for a repair on my Porsche.

But I stumbled across Jagiwan Jhally in the local newspaper, now I'm having second thoughts :?:

Look what I found: http://content.met.police.uk/News/M...r-13-year-dispute/1400026504087/1257246745756


Someone correct me if i'm wrong, do you think I should still give him a ring?

Has anyone worked with Jagiwan?

 

[9MLS]

Wow! I reckon there will be some unhappy customers who will have to wait over a year (if he is a good boy) to get their cars back!

 

[R60BBA]

I was sent this by a friend (I don’t read the Daily Mail), however…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...c-huge-payout-mechanic-porsche-returned-shell

 

[JSJhally]

I was sent this by a friend (I don’t read the Daily Mail), however…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...c-huge-payout-mechanic-porsche-returned-shell

Who was your friend that sent that? This article is not true, Jagjiwan Jhally (JJ Engineering, TRR Motorsport) is a well respected mechanic.

 

[911UK]

Who was your friend that sent that? This article is not true, Jagjiwan Jhally (JJ Engineering, TRR Motorsport) is a well respected mechanic.

Jagjiwan Jhally why dont you tell your story, rather than talking about yourself in third party

 

[R60BBA]

Who was your friend that sent that? This article is not true, Jagjiwan Jhally (JJ Engineering, TRR Motorsport) is a well respected mechanic.

Is this also not true?

Women wins £114k after mechanic kept Porsche for 11 years

An Oxford academic has received a substantial payout after a mechanic held onto her £80,000 Porsche for an astonishing 11 years.

www.lawyer-monthly.com

Oxford University academic Dr Penelope Horlick damaged her 1997 Porsche 911 Triptonic - worth £80,000 - whilst trying to avoid a pothole on a wet road in August 2010. After the accident occurred while Dr. Horlick was picking up her daughter from college, her car wouldn't start and had an oil leak. She entrusted the vehicle to engineer Jagjiwan Jhally, who took it to his workshop in Beckenham, promising to fix it.

Dr. Horlick reached out to Mr. Jhally, 59, multiple times for updates, but he did not return the car. Eventually, in 2014, she decided to purchase an Audi as a replacement. Despite her numerous requests, Mr. Jhally did not return her car, claiming it required an engine rebuild and asserting that he had legal rights over it while demanding payment for his "storage costs."

He provided Dr. Horlick with invoices amounting to approximately £9,000. Ultimately, in March 2022—over 11 years after it was given to the mechanic—the bare shell of the car was left outside Dr. Horlick's residence in Kensington. The court was informed that only the chassis, devoid of the engine, gearbox, and other essential components, was returned after legal action was initiated. Now, following a three-day trial, Mr. Jhally, operating as JJ Engineering, has been instructed to pay £114,000 in compensation to the academic.

Dr. Horlick enjoyed driving the car she purchased in 2008, taking it out a few times a week for her commute to work in Oxford, as noted by Recorder John Halford. After the accident, she took the vehicle to Mr. Jhally's repair shop in Beckenham, but years went by without any repairs being made or the car being returned to her.

“Mr. Jhally would often claim that the repairs were nearly finished, yet he never provided a clear timeline,” her barrister, Adam Smith-Roberts, explained. “As time went on, he became more confrontational, and Dr. Horlick felt intimidated about pressing the issue.” In her testimony, Dr. Horlick stated that Mr. Jhally grew “increasingly aggressive” when she asked for her car back, even sending her derogatory messages through her lawyers, calling her an “attention seeker.”

Legal Action
Dr. Horlick took legal action against Mr. Jhally for compensation due to a breach of contract and conversion, which means he failed to return her property when asked. In addition to needing to buy a new vehicle, she sought £5,000 for the emotional distress caused by losing her valued car. Mr. Jhally responded by suing Dr. Horlick for significant amounts he claimed to have spent on parts and repairs, arguing that her lawsuit was too late.

In his ruling, Recorder Halford noted that the dismantled Porsche 911 was clearly Dr. Horlick’s “pride and joy,” stating, “People don’t buy a Porsche just to have a car; they buy it to own a Porsche.” He emphasized the car's unique value due to its status and performance, mentioning that Dr. Horlick cherished driving it and felt deprived of the experience while Mr. Jhally had it, even though she only used it for certain trips.

The judge pointed out that additional distress was caused by Mr. Jhally leaving the car at her home against her clear instructions. His increasingly negative remarks about her only added to her distress, the judge noted.

Mr. Jhally’s comments were described as “vicious” and unfairly damaged Dr. Horlick’s reputation, according to the judge. The mechanic was also found to have failed to complete the repairs in a “reasonable time frame,” which the judge determined should have been within a year of taking the Porsche. Dr. Horlick had tried to be patient with the delays, considering Mr. Jhally’s health issues and his previous 11-month prison sentence in 2014 for conspiracy to commit assault. Regarding the repairs, the court heard that the mechanic had only removed the engine and performed a diagnosis.

Judge's Decision
The judge stated, “He did not finish the work with proper care and skill; in fact, he didn’t finish it at all, though there is no major criticism of how he approached his diagnosis.” Mr. Jhally had promised to continue working on the car and complete the repairs in 2012, and he made the same promise four years later.

“The judge pointed out that he reaffirmed this commitment in 2016 but failed to follow through.” Supporting Dr. Horlick’s claim of “conversion,” the judge mentioned that Mr. Jhally kept the Porsche despite her repeated requests for its return. “From 2016 onward, she made clear and serious requests for her car back,” he explained. “She had found another engineer to work on the car and wanted it returned so the necessary work could be done.”

However, Mr. Jhally refused to return the car unless certain "conditions" were met and eventually left the Porsche chassis on the street near her home, ignoring Dr. Horlick’s requests for it to be taken to her new mechanics. “Mr. Jhally claimed he had no choice but to return the car to her home, but I find that reasoning completely illogical,” the judge remarked. “It was obvious that she wanted the car picked up by her new mechanics or delivered to them by Mr. Jhally.”

Appeal
He was not allowed to deny the release of the car. The judge's decision is about £114,000, according to Dr. Horlick's lawyers. However, both parties will return to court later to talk about matters like interest on the damages, legal fees, and if Mr. Jhally can appeal.