The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 65-plate SUV in November 2017, and I was offered a free recall service at my local dealership. I took my car to the business on 17th January 2022, and although it was a free-of-charge service, they managed to find few faults on the car and gave me a quote for the work, which I accepted, and this was carried out the following day.
By the time I returned home after collecting the vehicle, it was dark, but the following morning, I found the door handle and area around the passenger side door were seriously damaged. I notified the business by phone and drove there to show them what I had found.
The manager said he asked around the staff and they said the damage was already there when the car was brought in the first time. I was then shown a handwritten damage report that was dated 18th January (not the 17th), which had a damaged door drawing on it. However, they did not have workshop surveillance or CCTV covering the work area, so it was their word against mine. In addition, my vehicle dashcam does not record when the doors are open and the engine is not running, so I couldn’t provide video evidence when my car was at the dealership.
When I looked at the vehicle health check dated on the 17th January, when my car was brought in, there was no body damage, which is different from the handwritten report, which shows marks on the vehicle. I have good enough reason however, to believe the report paper is not genuine, or someone has tried to modify it after I raised the damage to my vehicle.
I was also able to provide doorbell motion activated pictures from home on the 16th January, which showed no damage on the handle, but the manager said it is possible it happened overnight after the pictures were taken. However, there were no motions detected by the camera.
I hope you can investigate this issue, so that I can prove my innocence in this matter.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We trust our technicians to own up to any damage that would occur to a customer’s vehicle whilst in our care, but it is difficult to evidence specifically.
- An internal invoice has been attached as evidence the damage was already present. The second page clearly states “D” for damage on the vehicle’s near side front door.
- We do not agree with the comments relating to the modification of the report, as this indicates a deliberate attempt on our part to deceive.
- Following the picture provided by the customer (they did not provide any doorbell footage), there is no evidence to suggest that the damage to the car has happened whilst the vehicle was in our care.
- We have also provided a brief clip of the car being parked at our site, where access by other vehicles was impossible. A further picture has also been taken of the parking space showing it to be extremely unlikely that the kind of damage in question would have occurred whilst the vehicle was on site with us.
- We have reviewed all the evidence, and are satisfied that we did not damage the customer’s vehicle whilst in our possession. We have however, offered to arrange for the repair to the car to be completed at cost price as a goodwill gesture. This was purely in the interests of ongoing customer relations, and not an admission of guilt.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides, which consisted of an account of events, correspondence between both parties; photos of the vehicle and parking areas; the vehicle health check, invoices and job cards; as well as video footage.
- The adjudicator explained that, while it had been established there had been a fault in the form of damage to the door handle area of the passenger’s side door, the burden of proof was on the consumer to demonstrate that this was directly related to the workmanship of the business.
- To this effect, the photo of the vehicle having no damage to the same area from the day before, as well as the immediacy of the consumer raising this with the business when noticed, was deemed sufficient evidence to shift the burden of proof to the business.
- The adjudicator highlighted that the evidence provided by the business was not consistent enough to demonstrate that the vehicle was not damaged in their care.
- The job cards provided were not aligned with those provided to the consumer, as one was dated on 14th January, which was three to four days before the consumer brought the vehicle to the business.
- The damage report was also dated a day earlier than the ones provided to the consumer. In addition, the business was not able to provide any photographic or video evidence demonstrating the vehicle was already damaged when they received it from the consumer.
- The adjudicator therefore determined that based on the documentation supplied, it was more likely than not the business failed to carry out the recall and service work with the reasonable skill and care required, and were responsible for the damage to the consumer’s vehicle.
- As a result, the adjudicator found there to be a breach by the business of The Motor Ombudsman’s Service and Repair Code, and made the decision to uphold the case.
- The adjudicator awarded a written apology to the consumer from the business, as well as directing the business to cover the costs of repairing the damage to the consumer’s vehicle.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the adjudication decision made, with the consumer notifying the adjudicator of having received the written apology from the business. The consumer also updated that the repair process had been arranged to be undertaken by the business.
- The case was then closed with no further action taken.
