The consumer’s issue:
“I took my car to the dealership to have a new outer constant velocity (CV) boot fitted. The service advisor inspected the vehicle and completed a damage report. When I asked for a copy of it, they didn’t provide one. Once they had completed the repair, I inspected the car again and there was new damage to the bodywork. I know the car had some existing damage, but the dealership had caused some additional scratches. They’d also broken the sun visor clip, and I believe they did this while cleaning the vehicle. They offered to replace this and polish the scratches out, which I agreed to, but the scratches then reappeared. I am therefore looking for the business to cover the cost of repairing the damage at an independent garage of my choice.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When the car came in, we inspected it and completed a damage report.
- We noted there was existing damage, and the car was also relatively dirty when it arrived, so it’s possible there were other scratches which weren’t sufficiently visible.
- The scratches the consumer has complained about aren’t consistent with the damage caused through washing the car, and if it was, we’d expect the whole vehicle to have similar damage.
- We didn’t check the inside of the car, but we did vacuum it, so we can’t say if the visor clip was already broken or not.
- We offered to replace the sun visor clip, polish out the scratches and provide the customer with touch up paint as a gesture of goodwill.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the customer’s complaint, but didn’t uphold it. They said there was no evidence that the dealership had caused any damage, or that they’d failed to exercise reasonable care and skill when carrying out the repairs.
- The consumer didn’t agree with the adjudication outcome and asked for a final decision from the ombudsman.
Ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman didn’t uphold the consumer’s complaint in their favour.
- She said that, although neither party could prove the exact state the car had been in when it went in for repairs, it was clear that most of the panels on the vehicle had existing bodywork damage, as noted on the damage report. This document had also been signed by the consumer at the time.
- She also noted the car was seven years old with over 90,000 miles on the clock.
- She said the photographs provided showed quite extensive damage, which was pre-existing.
- As a result, there was no evidence to suggest that the scratches being complained about weren’t consistent with the age and mileage of the car, or that they hadn’t been present when the vehicle went in to the dealership.
- The ombudsman said the dealership had replaced the sun visor clip, polished the scratches and offered top up paint as a gesture of goodwill.
- This was a fair and reasonable offer, so the business didn’t need to do anything further.
- Both parties accepted the final decision, and the case was closed.
