The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 16-plate pick-up in July 2019, and in October 2020, I took my vehicle to an independent dealership, as there was a fault with the EGR valve after 8,000 miles. Not only did this lead to the replacement of the cylinder head at a cost of nearly £6,600, but the business would also not give me a courtesy car during the repairs. As my pick-up was with the dealership for five weeks, I had to get a hire car at a cost of £1,285.
The manufacturer was aware of this fault, and due to the lack of communication between the dealership and myself, I contacted the manufacturer, but received no reply. When I called them, they claimed that they had not received any of the documentation I had sent, which I don’t believe.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the level of customer service I received to be investigated, as well as full compensation for the cost of repair, car hire and all the inconvenience I have had to put up with to date.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We do not have a limitless supply of loan vehicles, and it is very possible we simply did not have any cars available at the time for the consumer.
- Given that the repair was outside the warranty period, it would have been the consumer’s responsibility to arrange alternative transportation.
- As the consumer raised their concerns about the costs directly with the manufacturer, it would probably be best to direct a complaint against them.
- We are an independent dealer outside of the manufacturer’s franchise network, and would not have received the original communications sent to the manufacturer by the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, whilst there were several obligations on the repairing business under the Service and Repair Code, none of these placed a requirement on the business to provide a courtesy vehicle to consumers during repairs to their vehicle.
- The adjudicator acknowledged the consumer may have been inconvenienced by the unavailability of a courtesy vehicle and needed to hire a car at their own cost.
- However, the fact remained that the dealership was under no obligation to provide a vehicle, meaning this element of the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld.
- As for the faults with the EGR valve, the adjudicator sees the consumer may have had a fundamental misunderstanding as to what parties would be responsible for these costs.
- As a reminder, the repairing business did not sell the consumer the vehicle, and therefore, when it was taken to them, the business only had an obligation to rectify the fault with reasonable skill and care, and would only be financially responsible for faults caused by their actions.
- Any other issues, whether they be manufacturing defects, would not be for the business to cover.
- The fault with the EGR valve was not caused by the business but, as the consumer claimed, was a manufacturing defect. As a result, it would be for either the manufacturer or the selling dealership to reimburse the consumer.
- Nevertheless, the vehicle was no longer under warranty, and therefore the manufacturer no longer held any responsibility towards the pick-up.
- The adjudicator stated that if the consumer believed the fault with the vehicle’s EGR valve shouldn’t have happened after only 8,000 miles, their best course of action would be to raise this matter with the seller of the car.
- As there was nothing to suggest that any of the issues highlighted by the consumer were a result of the repairing dealership’s actions, this element of the complaint was also not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- The business agreed with the findings of the adjudicator, whilst the consumer later withdrew their complaint following the adjudication outcome.
