Recently on television and in the Press the Motor Agents’ Association Fidelity Scheme was painted in glowing colours.

I have no doubt that a great deal of good work has been done by this body, but I’m afraid my personal experience is not entirely in line with these reports. In June, 1963, I wrote to the M.A.A. giving details of unsatisfactory work carried out on my car by a local garage which was a member of the Fidelity scheme. This consisted of an exchange crankshaft, new pistons, and all associated auxiliaries. The gudgeon-pin on one cylinder “floated” due to a slack clamping bolt and scored the cylinder deeply, also causing damage to the crankshaft.

It was September 13th before an examination of the engine was carried out at my insistence, thus enabling me to replace the damaged engine, the car lying idle from June to September, causing considerable inconvenience and financial loss. From September 13th to the present date I have had no further communications from the Fidelity Scheme despite three letters from myself requesting progress details in my claim against the garage.

As you will appreciate, my opinion of the Fidelity Scheme is not very high since the inconvenience and financial loss could have been minimised simply by replacing the engine at my own cost immediately and accepting the bad workmanship. I would be interested to learn if any reader has had a similar experience.