The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand new luxury coupé in April 2021, and in November that year, I took my car to the dealership to have a service completed. Upon the collection of my vehicle, I noticed deep scratches along the boot, and on the rear panel on the right-hand side of the car.
I brought this to the attention of the business, and they advised me they would check the CCTV footage. This was never done after countless emails from myself, plus they didn’t give me a straight answer and refused to be accountable for the damage.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to repair the bodywork at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- As the service was carried out on 1st November 2021, we no longer have any CCTV footage. However, our team did check the cameras at the time of the complaint and, as vehicle was dirty at the time, we said to the consumer that we could not accept liability for the condition of the vehicle.
- We recall that the customer pointed out a number of scratches on the vehicle at the time the service was completed, but the scratches complained of relate to those on the boot of the vehicle.
- We explained to the consumer that we did not open the boot or work on that area of the vehicle, and therefore we would not accept any liability that we caused any damage to the car.
- The customer made a booking with us, but did not arrive on this occasion, and made another appointment to investigate brake squeal. However, there was no mention of any bodywork issues on either of these bookings.
- Therefore, we do not feel that we should be made liable to repair the customer’s vehicle at no charge.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice for Service and Repair, the business had an obligation to ensure that any work is carried out using reasonable skill and care.
- The adjudicator explained that the consumer had the burden of demonstrating that the issues complained about were directly related to the workmanship of the business.
- He also said that he had not been provided with either documentary or technical evidence which substantiated the consumer’s position, namely any photographs of the vehicle either before the service was carried out, or directly after the work had been completed. Therefore, it was not possible for the adjudicator to determine how the damage was caused to the vehicle.
- Therefore, after reviewing the facts of the case, the evidence did not demonstrate a breach of the Code of Practice for Service and Repair, meaning the business could not be held liable for the damage. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
