The consumer’s issue:
The consumer took their hybrid saloon to a dealership to investigate an issue with the car. The business advised the car would be at the workshop for the day, and would call the customer with an update. However, none were received, and it was left to the consumer to chase the repairer.
Three days later, the business called the vehicle owner to advise on the cost and to request authorisation for rectifying a fault with the auxiliary belt, which was going to break imminently due to its condition. As the vehicle was still within the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty period, the consumer requested the repairs were carried out at no cost to them, and the dealership agreed to raise a claim.
However, later that day, the business called back and advised the repairs would not be covered under warranty, as the failure was put down to wear and tear. The business advised the parts required for repair were on back order and would not arrive until the following week, leaving the consumer to pay for the cost of the belt. The dealership also said that a courtesy car would not be made available despite it being a term of the manufacturer’s warranty.
The parts eventually arrived six weeks after the vehicle was initially brought into the workshop. To resolve their complaint, the consumer was seeking an apology for the time taken to repair the car, and to be reimbursed for the cost of repairs and for being without their vehicle – a total claim of £1,000.
The case outcome:
The ombudsman considered consumer law, which stated that where the time to deliver a service is not expressly fixed, it must be completed within a ‘reasonable time’. This is in comparison to a hypothetical alternative garage. The ombudsman found it likely that, as the part was on back order, the delay would have been the same had the consumer gone to a different dealership.
The ombudsman noted that once the part was obtained, the repair was completed swiftly. Reviewing the dates of the diagnosis and work undertaken, the ombudsman was satisfied that the time taken to rectify the consumer’s vehicle was reasonable. As such, the ombudsman concluded there had not been any breach of contract or law.
The ombudsman then went on to consider the offer of a courtesy car. The ombudsman advised the manufacturer and the dealership were different legal entities. As such, he could not hold the dealership liable if the manufacturer failed to provide one under the manufacturer’s warranty.
In addition, the ombudsman advised there was no term of contract or law which required the dealership to provide a courtesy car to the consumer. As such, they could not be held liable for the consumer’s alleged losses of transport costs or to provide compensation for the loss of use of their own vehicle.
As there had been no breach of the law or The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair, the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
Neither party disputed the findings, and the case was closed.
