[Iamchris]

A few weeks ago my daughter had a flat tyre.
We called the RAC who sent out a local mobile tyre fitter who changed the tyre.
I then booked the car in at my local tyre fitter for a wheel realignment.
I then get a phone call from them saying they haven't removed the hub because the bolt has been cross threaded - almost certainly because the mobile fitter put the bolt in the gun instead of screwing it into the hub first. They also said that any experienced tyre fitter would have known what happened. I have an email and a photo before they removed the tyre confirming the cross threading.
They managed to get the bolt out but the hub is obviously damaged and needs replacing.
I put in a complaint to the RAC who said that under their Terms and Conditions they are not responsible for damage to the vehicle caused by a 3rd Party mechanic (even though they sent him). I can find nothing in their Terms and Conditions which states this. In their email they state that they make their decision on the details I have given them. It's therefore a natural assumption that they haven't even contacted the 3rd Party but just jumped on the "We are not responsible" excuse.
In the meantime I have contacted the owner of the mobile tyre fitting company who, as expected, has gone not guilty ("It must have been damaged before on a previous change").

So my question is where do I take this now? The Ombudsman? Small Claims? Or can I appeal the "verdict" from the RAC complaints department?

[olduser]

I would say this is simple, you have paid RAC to provide roadside service, if they choose to send incompetent people to fix the problem, your complaint is with the RAC.
Even it it were in their terms, and conditions that they were not liable for third party damage, it would not stand up in court.

I am surprised a crossed thread on a wheel nut has damaged the wheel hub?

However, you could get an invoice for the repair, then make a claim through the small claims court system.

Good luck.

[Rolebama]

From what I understand, the 3rd party was nominated by the RAC, and acting as their agent, so, as far as I am aware, it is the RAC's problem.

[NMNeil]

Maybe vicarious liability?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicari...in_English_law
US law is based on UK law and here you can't 'hide' behind the independent contractor defense in tort claims.