Understand how a trusted mechanic identified abusive charges of R$ 11,700 for changing tires

Mechanic's alert The case involving the charge after changing tires occurred in 2023, and the woman was individually compensated in court for R$32,200 last year. This process has already been closed, however, the most recent decision can be appealed. According to the process, obtained by g1, the consumer sought out a trusted mechanic the day after the incident, as she was suspicious of the amount charged for changing tires. The woman sent the invoices and services performed to the professional, who stated that part of the services did not make sense. According to him, the vehicle had just undergone an inspection and had part of its equipment replaced. Furthermore, the professional claimed that the "rear axle calibration" and the "steering box adjustment", which generated a charge of almost R$10,000, were frauds. He also challenged the “power steering adjustment” service, given that the vehicle has electric steering. The mechanic researched quotes in other workshops and also on the internet, gathering elements that reinforced the suspicion of abusive charging and led the consumer to report the case. See examples below: Cleaning the brake system: the company charged R$850. In a workshop consulted by the MP, the same service cost R$160; in another, R$ 380. Cleaning the power steering system: charged R$ 600, while the workshops reported prices between R$ 185 and R$ 350. Adjustment of the steering box: Muniz charged R$ 990. Workshops in the region reported prices between R$ 310 and R$ 900. The MP highlighted that the prices of the workshops consulted refer to the months of April and May of 2025, almost two years after the case involving the consumer. Guidance At the request of g1, lawyer Rafael Quaresma, a specialist in Consumer Law and unrelated to the case, gathered tips provided for in the Consumer Protection Code to guide people on how to act in similar situations of abusive charges. According to him, it is abusive to carry out services without a prior quote and without express authorization from the client. The workshop must inform the value, notify the consumer and wait for approval before starting any repair. If the need for a new service arises during the vehicle analysis, the company must wait for authorization. The cost of the estimate, such as dismantling the car, may be charged, but needs to be informed in advance. Otherwise, it is assumed to be free. Car mechanic Malte Luk/Pexels He highlighted that the consumer can cancel the service after receiving the quote, requiring the return of the item. "He received the assembled car, so he needs to return the assembled car to the consumer," he said. If the workshop improperly retains the vehicle, it is possible to call the police to register the incident and, if necessary, go to court to recover the asset. "You paid, did you agree?" According to him, payment alone does not mean that the consumer agreed with the values. In cases where customers pay only to be able to collect the car, they may seek compensation for the improper service. Quaresma highlighted that, as provided for in the Consumer Protection Code, consumers can go to court and request a refund of double the amounts unduly charged. The lawyer advised gathering all possible documentation, such as WhatsApp conversations, photos, recordings, proof of payment, invoices and receipts, to facilitate proof of the consumer relationship. When leaving the vehicle at the workshop, the consumer can also request documents indicating the date, time and service contracted. This record helps to prove that the car was at the establishment in case problems occur, such as fines or accidents. Conviction The São Vicente Court sentenced two Rede Muniz companies to pay R$100,000 for collective moral damages following abusive practices in an automotive center. According to the Prosecutor's Office, customers were attracted by tire promotions and induced to hire unauthorized services and parts. In the decision of the 2nd Civil Court, judge Renato de Almeida Mascarenhas concluded that the episodes demonstrate a “predatory nature” and the search for excessive advantage. He highlighted that the conduct undermined consumer confidence, generated a waste of time and violated basic rights provided for in the Consumer Protection Code. The ruling, published on June 29, set compensation of R$100,000 to the State Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Interests and imposed obligations on companies, such as obtaining express authorization, presenting a detailed budget, maintaining an after-sales channel, publishing the decision for two years and carrying out annual training. VIDEOS: g1 in 1 minute Santos