The consumer’s issue:
A consumer purchased a brand-new diesel SUV for £45,000 in June 2015, and had the car serviced on schedule at the required intervals at the same dealership. The vehicle’s mileage reached 90,327 miles at the time of its service in June 2021, but the business failed to advise the consumer that the cambelt had not been replaced in line with the 90,000-mile or 10-year interval, whichever came first.
Due to not being changed, and the cambelt subsequently deteriorating, it snapped in June 2024, when the vehicle was nine years old and had covered 126,793 miles, causing catastrophic engine damage.
The business quoted £12,000 to replace the engine, and denied liability that it was their responsibility to have changed the cambelt, and explained that it was up the consumer to ensure that the vehicle was serviced in line with the requirements of the manufacturer.
However, the consumer disagreed with this outcome, and wanted the vehicle repaired at no cost, or to be awarded a payment of £12,600 – reflecting the value of the vehicle at the time of the failure.
The case outcome:
An ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that the service history and the vehicle manual did not specify the cambelt replacement interval. As an authorised repairer had carried out the vehicle’s annual services, the business should have identified when the cambelt was due and given the customer clear advice and the opportunity to authorise its replacement. In fact, there was no evidence that this advice had been given in 2021 or at subsequent services. As such, the ombudsman considered it unlikely that the customer, who had consistently maintained the vehicle through the same main dealer, would have disregarded such advice.
Replacement engine quotations exceeded £12,000, and the customer had provided a valuation of £12,610 for the vehicle at the time of the failure. The ombudsman concluded that the fairest resolution was for the business to pay the customer £12,610 and retain the vehicle.
Conclusion:
Although the business was not expected to replace the cambelt without authorisation, its omission deprived the customer of the opportunity to arrange the work at the correct interval.
On the balance of probabilities, this contributed to the circumstances that led to the engine failure, and meant that the complaint was upheld based on the business failing to provide clear and practical advice and identify the manufacturer’s scheduled maintenance requirements.
The business was also advised to ensure its technicians were appropriately trained in servicing requirements and that maintenance advice, and customer authorisations were recorded on service invoices.
