The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a 12-plate hatchback from a private individual in July 2023, and a couple of months later, the car developed a problem with the oil pump. They took the car to their local dealership, where they were informed that a new oil pressure sensor was needed, and at this point a new oil pump was also ordered. The engine was dismantled to replace the components, but on returning two weeks later for the pump to be fitted, the consumer was informed there would be a five-week delay for the part to arrive.
The business also informed them that no loan car would be available whilst the car was at the dealership waiting to be repaired, and if there was, there would be a daily fee. With no contact from the garage as to the when the part would arrive, and the estimated wait time subsequently being extended until the end of November 2023, the consumer asked for the vehicle to be reassembled, so that they could have the vehicle repaired elsewhere. The dealership explained that there would be a cost for this.
Proactively getting in touch with the dealership, the part did eventually arrive as per the estimate, and the pump was fitted in mid-December. As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking for a discount of around £350, due to having to pay for the labour costs twice, because of the delay in procuring the pump.
The case outcome:
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, the adjudicator noted that it was not disputed that the oil pump was on back order, and that the fitting of the new part was delayed by circa three months.
The adjudicator outlined that the repairing garage’s responsibility under the Service and Repair Code is to ensure that, in the event there is a delay in obtaining parts, the consumer is kept up to date with their estimated arrival.
The adjudicator concluded that due to the business not providing evidence to substantiate that the consumer was kept up to date, it was more likely than not that the consumer had not been kept appropriately informed about the delays.
The adjudicator explained that, in relation to the time taken for the oil pump to arrive, this was the responsibility of the manufacturer or parts supplier, meaning the repairer was not responsible for the delay in the supply of the pump.
In regards to the reassembly of the engine, the dealership explained that there would be a cost to reassemble the vehicle if the consumer was requesting such action. However, the adjudicator pointed out that the Service and Repair Code states that reassembly should be at no additional cost, since it is usually factored into the repair fee. In this case, the evidence showed that the consumer had not been charged an additional fee, meaning no breach of the Code had occurred. On this point, the adjudicator made a recommendation for the dealership to fully understand their responsibilities in regard to reassembly.
As a remedy to the complaint, the consumer was seeking a discount on the labour cost to fit the oil pump. However, the adjudicator was unable to make an award, due to the business not having an obligation to do this, and because no financial loss was incurred by the consumer.
Conclusion:
Based on the facts of the case, the dispute was therefore partially upheld with no remedy since the consumer was not charged a reassembly fee.
Key learning points:
A repairing garage has the responsibility to reassemble the vehicle (if it is possible to do so), if the consumer wishes to have the repairs completed elsewhere, and no charges should be made for doing so.
