The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 14-plate premium SUV in May 2016, and in July 2022, I took the car to a garage to have all four tyres changed. After getting my vehicle back, I noticed two of the alloys had been scratched, and I returned to the premises within the hour to report the damage. I spoke to a staff member who left me with the reassurance that a manager would call me back to advise what could be done, but this never happened.
I took also pictures of the damage, which clearly showed that the scratches were new, and the manager at the garage even acknowledged this on the day I took the vehicle back. Despite receiving no response from the business, I contacted three repairers to get a quote, and each of them said that all four alloys would need to be resprayed to achieve a matching finish, and would take one working day to complete.
I contacted the garage again, and they said they would only cover the cost of repairing two of the wheels, but I don’t agree with this. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the business to cover the cost of a hire car for a day (£80), as well as the £300 charge to have the wheels fixed – a total claim of £380.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We firmly dispute that this damage was caused during the replacement of the tyres. Having seen the images, there is a difficulty understanding how such damage could have occurred due to the equipment used, and the fact the tyre machine is fitted with a plastic head, which does not come into contact with the actual wheel.
- There are of course, occasions when fitting a tyre can cause damage to the wheel, but in this case, the damage would be a lot lighter than what the pictures show, and would be generally rotational in line with the operation of the tyre machine and the process involved in the removal and re-fitment of a tyre.
- Therefore, due to the nature of the scratch marks, we fail to see how this could have occurred due to our work.
- However, in the interest of preserving a positive customer relationship, we made a decision to provide a 50% contribution towards the cost of the repair of the alloys as a goodwill gesture, as opposed to this being an admission of liability. This offer was declined by the customer, on the basis that all four wheels would need to be painted/resprayed to have a colour match.
- We are unfortunately not able to cover the cost of providing a courtesy vehicle, in addition to the proposed repairs, nor do we offer such a facility to customers.
- In summary, our 50% contribution to the cost of repair is our final offer to assist the customer, and we can make arrangements for this to be paid either directly to the repairer or to the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides, which included photos of the alloy wheels, as well as the quotation for repairs obtained by the consumer.
- The adjudicator explained that the evidential burden of proof was upon the business to demonstrate that the damage highlighted by the consumer was not caused by their workmanship in the process of the tyre change.
- The evidential burden was reversed here, as the business possessed both the facilities and expertise to provide the necessary documentation.
- On this point, the business was unable to provide sufficient evidence of the work being carried, with no scratches caused to the wheels, or that the scratches existed prior to their work.
- The adjudicator highlighted that the consumer brought the vehicle back to the garage within a very space of time after collecting it, after noticing the scratches on the wheels.
- It was therefore determined that, based on the evidence, it was more likely than not the damage to the two wheels had occurred while the business was changing the tyres, and that this had not been with the reasonable skill and care required.
- As a result, the adjudicator found there to be a breach by the business of the Service and Repair Code, and made the decision to uphold the case in the consumer’s favour.
- However, the adjudicator did not agree with the consumer’s sought resolution to have all four wheels resprayed, as this would put them in a better position overall, than before the consumer had the work carried out, bearing in mind that the vehicle at the time was already over eight years old and had covered more than 45,000 miles.
- An award was made for the business to cover the cost of repair to two wheels, which would put the consumer back in a position had this damage not occurred.
- The adjudicator equally highlighted that a business does not have a legal obligation to either supply a courtesy car, or to contribute towards the costs of a hire car.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication decision made, and the award made was actioned.
