The consumer’s issue:
The consumer took their six-year-old hatchback to a dealership to investigate an issue with the clutch. Following an inspection of the vehicle, the business recommended and replaced the master cylinder after the consumer authorised the repair.
However, a month later, the clutch failed again, which resulted in the replacement of the slave cylinder at a different dealership – once again at the consumer’s expense due to this component also failing.
The consumer approached the first dealership to reclaim the money paid, as they explained that they were told the problem had been fixed. The business explained in response that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, as the slave cylinder is typically replaced if issues with the master cylinder persist – consistent with the manufacturer’s warranty policy. This meant that no unnecessary work had initially been undertaken from their perspective, and no award was made to the consumer by the business.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that the first dealership stated that the repair to the master cylinder was undertaken in line with the manufacturer’s technical service bulletin, and that the clutch system was operating correctly once the work had taken place. Therefore, the dealer did not find it necessary to remove the gearbox or replace the slave cylinder at this stage.
Whilst the adjudicator acknowledged that the replacement of the slave cylinder represented the second stage of diagnosis, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the master cylinder needed to be changed first of all prior to any repairs being undertaken to the slave cylinder.
However, the adjudicator also noted that it is considered best practice and standard industry procedure to replace the slave cylinder when changing a failed master cylinder to maintain hydraulic consistent pressure, and because they operate as a matched pair with one known to stop working shortly after the other.
Whilst it was acknowledged that the business did not identify any symptoms to indicate that the slave cylinder had any issues, it was more likely than not that an alternative technician would have at least recommended and informed the consumer of this, so that the customer was placed in a position to make an educated decision about the repair, and would have been liable for the same overall expense.
Conclusion:
In light of the facts presented, the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour and was awarded an apology for what had happened as the business had failed to diagnose the vehicle to the required standard.
The reason for not asking the dealership to make any reimbursements for the costs of repair, was because it was found that they did not actually cause the slave cylinder to fail, and it would have failed irrespective of the point in which the slave cylinder had been identified as needing a replacement.
Key learning point:
The responsibility of the vehicle repairer is not just to follow the correct diagnostic steps, but to inform consumers as to the work being completed and the likely impact of it based on their professional experience.
