The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new SUV in December 2018, and in April 2021, I booked it into the garage for them to repair the horn under the manufacturer’s warranty. The condition of my car was inspected on arrival and no damage was noted, except for two marks, which I pointed out. Paperwork was signed to confirm this was the case.
Later that afternoon, the garage contacted me to advise that the repair needed a part, which was out of stock, and therefore a courtesy vehicle was provided. I was not informed of any further issues at this time.
My car was ready to collect two days later, and on arrival, I was informed that the vehicle had scratch marks on the front bumper, just below the grille. The garage said this must have been present when the vehicle was dropped off, and they tried to refit the grille, but could not do it properly.
I do not believe the scratch marks or the grille were damaged before the car was taken in, nor was this noted at the initial inspection. Furthermore, I did not authorise them to carry out work on any other areas of the vehicle apart from the horn. Usually, the horn on most cars is behind the front grille, but this is not the case with my car.
The resolution I am seeking to my complaint is for the garage to reimburse me for the cost of refitting the grille, and to repair the scratches they caused on my vehicle, which equates to around £680.”
The accredited business’ response:
- At the time of the customer’s complaint, we reviewed CCTV footage, which showed the customer parked the car in a disabled parking space and the vehicle did not move until it was taken into the workshop.
- The vehicle was inspected when it arrived, but the grille damage was not noted. However, the car was parked facing a wall, so visibility was restricted.
- It was at the point that the technician went out to take the car into the workshop that he noted the damage to the grille. The CCTV footage confirms the technician is seen inspecting the bumper, and fetching a service technician to show them what he had found.
- Our technician refitted the grille as a gesture of goodwill whilst the vehicle was in the workshop.
- We therefore do not accept any liability that we caused damage to the vehicle – confirmed by the CCTV footage.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the submissions, and concluded that the business had failed to carry out a thorough inspection of the customer’s vehicle at the time that it was dropped off.
- It was not reasonable to suggest that, just because the car was parked in front of a wall, the consumer would be liable for condition of the vehicle on return if no damage was noted during the inspection.
- The adjudicator stated that it would have been acceptable for the business to contact the customer when they first noticed the damage, rather than this being pointed out on collection of the vehicle.
- It was also noted that the garage had failed to provide a copy of the CCTV footage they relied on within their submissions. Therefore, the adjudicator was unable to substantiate their position.
- On the balance of probabilities, the adjudicator concluded that it was more likely than not that the damage would have occurred at some point between the vehicle being dropped off by the customer, and collection.
- The adjudicator concluded that the business had breached the Code of Practice for Service and Repair as it failed to demonstrate that the vehicle had been treated with respect and care, as stated within Section 5.1 of the Code.
- Therefore, the customer’s complaint was upheld in their favour, and it was recommended that the business should repair both the grille and scratches free of charge.
- The adjudicator also recommended a formal apology for the inconvenience this matter caused to the customer.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.
