The consumer’s issue:

The consumer bought a used ’10-plate city car in 2017. After driving the vehicle for six years, they took it to their local dealership as the cambelt needed changing. However, after the repair, the car suffered a breakdown, and it was returned by the recovery service to the business to have it fixed.

The customer explained that the dealer admitted fault, and they also complained about the unprofessional service they had received. In light of what had happened, the business offered a free-of-charge major service of an equivalent value of £437.50 as a gesture of goodwill at any of its branches.

However, this was not deemed acceptable by the consumer, and they were ultimately seeking a full refund of £560 for the changing of the cambelt plus compensation for the inconvenience caused to them, and the time spent off work.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence presented by both parties, and acknowledged that reasonable care and skill was not used during the repair of the vehicle due to the consumer having to return their vehicle soon after the work was carried out.

In terms of the level of customer service that the vehicle owner had received, the adjudicator explained that they were not there at the time of the conversations, and that there were conflicting accounts as to what was said.

Therefore, the adjudicator partially upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour on the first point in relation to the standard of work, and as well as the consumer benefiting from a free-of-charge adjustment of the cambelt, it was recommended that the business continued to offer the goodwill gesture of a free service in the event that the consumer changed their mind about accepting this in the future.

The consumer disagreed with the outcome, and it was passed to an ombudsman for a final decision.
The ombudsman reviewed the conclusions from the adjudicator, and the documentation provided, and remarked that the car had been subject to a short road-test after the work had been completed to ensure the cambelt was seated correctly, and was deemed acceptable for the vehicle to be handed back to the customer.

The ombudsman also mentioned that older vehicles will often require an adjustment to the belt following its replacement, and that the remedy under consumer law is for a repeat repair in the event that the issue was not fixed in the first instance.

As a result, it was deemed by the ombudsman that the business had used reasonable care and skill when changing the cambelt on the consumer’s car. In respect of the standard of service, the consumer had not provided any information as to the reasons behind their complaint, meaning no breach of the Service and Repair Code was identified.

The ombudsman also explained that The Motor Ombudsman does not award compensation for non-demonstrable losses but, as with the adjudicator, they recommended that the business maintained its offer of goodwill.

Conclusion:

In summary, the ombudsman concluded that neither aspect of the complaint could be upheld in the consumer’s favour, but the offer of goodwill remained. The consumer did not respond to the final decision, and the case was closed.