The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a 2008 plate car from a dealership in April 2016. During the test drive, the Engine Management Light (EML) illuminated, and I was told this would be repaired before the sale and a courtesy car provided. On 04 May 2016, the car was delivered and I was informed that the issue had been fixed. A week later, the EML came on again and I was told to take the car to a more local branch of the dealership, but this branch refused so it was taken to a local dealership. On 20 May 2016, I was informed by the dealership that a reconditioned, non-genuine turbo had been fitted, and that they had been advised by the selling dealership not to carry out any further repairs. The selling dealership then advised it was fixed. In November 2016, the warning light came on again and I was towed to a local garage who told me I needed a new engine and gearbox. The selling dealership asked for an independent inspection and a report from the garage, and eventually declined to contribute to the repairs which cost me £3,260. I want them to pay me back for the repairs.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We don’t know why the engine failed, as we haven’t been given the opportunity to diagnose or inspect the vehicle.
- Additionally, the evidence for the engine failure has not come from a recognised independent engineer’s body.
- We believe the consumer would have seen smoke coming from the vehicle and the turbo would have been noisy if the car had failed due to oil starvation and this was not reported by the customer. There also should have been visual warnings, such as an oil light or low oil message.
- We also dispute that fitting a non-genuine turbo is what’s caused the failure.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator looked at the case and asked both parties to split the cost of the bill equally. She believed this was a fair way forwards, because although there was evidence to show that the dealership had halted repairs, and there was no reasoning provided for this decision, the consumer had taken away the dealership’s ability to inspect the vehicle by taking it to a different garage for repairs.
- The consumer disagreed with this decision, as she felt the dealership had an opportunity to look at the car if they had wanted to do so, and the case was passed to the ombudsman for a final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman weighed up the evidence and provisionally ruled that the dealership should pay for the full cost of the repairs.
- The distance between the dealership and the consumer had made the situation difficult, as it wasn’t possible for the consumer to take the car back to them.
- However, when the car was in the dealership, there was an opportunity for it to be inspected and for repairs to take place with the dealership’s involvement.
- The invoice from the dealership showed that they undertook an initial diagnosis but were told not to carry on any further with the job.
- The dealership, in its reply to the provisional decision, said this was because they thought the car was fixed, but nothing on the invoice showed that the dealership thought the car was repaired, so something didn’t quite add up.
- Additionally, although the car went to a garage for its repairs after the engine failed, this was because it was towed there when it broke down and the consumer had no choice.
- Finally, the consumer had informed the dealership of the breakdown straightaway and there was an opportunity for the dealership to recover the car at that point.
Conclusion:
- The ombudsman deemed it reasonable for the dealership to pay for the full cost of repairs. The consumer accepted the final decision and the case has been resolved.