The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 16-plate compact crossover SUV in May 2019, and three months later, I took the car to my local dealership for diagnostics in relation to an issue with the cylinder heads. The business was instructed to undertake certain tests by the manufacturer, but they failed to do these. Had these been carried out during the warranty period, the policy would have covered the cost of repairs.
I therefore do not think I should be liable to pay for the work, and I am looking for the dealership to cover the £10,000 cost, or to offer this sum in compensation to cover the occurrence of any possible future issues.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When the vehicle was first booked in for an investigation on 19th August 2019, we could not hear any rattling from the engine, but a faint whirring noise coming from a different area.
- The customer collected the vehicle the following morning, and was advised to contact us if they could still hear any rattling.
- We had no communication from the consumer up until 14th October 2019, when they brought their car in for a service, and there was no request to investigate any rattling at this time.
- On 18th February 2020, the vehicle came back in for a different investigation in relation to a recall with no mention of any rattling again from the customer.
- In July 2020, and with no contact since the last visit, we received a poor online review, so we invited the consumer to come in for a meeting (which they did), and explained that, when their car came to us in August 2019, we were unable to hear the rattling they described, and that there had been no further mention from them regarding the issue, even though they had brought their car in for servicing, recall work, as well as other unrelated issues.
- We all agreed to book the vehicle back in, and made a booking for 17th August 2020, and in the meantime, we said we would liaise with the selling dealership to see if they would contribute to investigation costs.
- This was agreed with them, but the consumer cancelled their visit on the morning of the 17th August. We have not seen or spoken to them since.
- The vehicle was outside of the vehicle manufacturer’s three-year warranty at the time of first coming to us, and these investigations were chargeable, but as we were unable to find a fault with the car in August 2019, we did not charge the consumer on this occasion, or in February 2020 as a gesture of goodwill.
- As our evidence shows, we gave the customer every chance to bring their vehicle back in for us to investigate the issue.
- We do not feel that we have let the consumer down, and we have tried to help and assist as much as we can.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that it was up to the customer to show that the actions taken by the repairing dealership broke a duty of care owed to them, and that they subsequently incurred a loss which would not have otherwise occurred.
- In order to prove a breach of this duty, the adjudicator explained that the consumer needed to be able to show that, either the dealer deviated from the agreed diagnostics procedure, or that they failed to observe what a reasonably skilled technician ought to have noted when conducting the initial review.
- As the manufacturer asked for a specific diagnostic test to be undertaken, this showed that the dealer had not followed the necessary process.
- The request was to check the camshaft float, and it is likely that, had the dealership done this, they would have also observed it was outside of the accepted parameters and could have been a source of the rattle.
- It was also pointed out by the adjudicator that the dealer was under no obligation to have done any of this work for free, and they could have therefore charged the consumer for these investigations.
- As a result, the adjudicator concluded that, whilst the dealership was kind enough to not charge the consumer for the work, they were however, still in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Service and Repair Code for not checking a known fault after being asked to do so.
- There was also no evidence showing that the warranty would have covered the repair, and the consumer received the diagnostics without charge which they should have otherwise paid for.
- In summary, the adjudicator determined that the breach of the Service and Repair Code did not warrant any remedy or payment to the consumer, as they were not considered to have been disadvantaged by it.
- The consumer however, disagreed with this outcome and requested a final decision from an ombudsman, along with a request to submit further evidence for consideration.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided and the adjudicator’s decision, and concluded that, despite the dealership’s failure to act with reasonable care and skill in diagnosing the vehicle, the consumer was not unfairly deprived of their right to have the vehicle repaired under warranty.
- He explained that, had the dealership acted correctly by diagnosing the issue, it is likely that the vehicle manufacturer would have declined the warranty repair for the same reasons as raised by the selling dealership.
- Whilst it was plausible that the camshaft was not causing any detriment to the vehicle’s health, the fact remained that there was still a noise resulting a known defect, and that the car was within the serviceable limit to have the part repaired.
- This would usually have been dealt with by the retailer, as by virtue of the finding of a manufacturing defect, the vehicle was de facto not of satisfactory quality.
- As such, the retailer was deemed to be liable to repair the issue under statute.
- However, in this instance, the claim was not brought against the retailer, as the consumer believed the repairer was at fault and it was considered unjust to decline the consumer’s complaint as the innocent party.
- In the circumstances, the ombudsman therefore concluded that it was fair and reasonable to uphold the consumer’s complaint in their favour, as the repairing dealership had failed to comply with their obligations under the Service and Repair Code.
- The ombudsman recommended that dealership complete the repairs at no cost to the consumer, and for the business to reclaim the sum from the vehicle manufacturer.
- The rationale for this, would be that the consumer would be returned to the position they would have been in had the dealership performed the initial diagnosis, and had the manufacturer approved the repair.
- In light of the customer’s claim for potential issues that may occur in the future, had the vehicle suffered a breakdown or further problems, the ombudsman would have made a further award. However, no such issues had happened, which meant that no further remedy was recommended.
- The ombudsman contacted the manufacturer on behalf of the dealership ahead of time to confirm they would contribute to some or all of the repair costs. The manufacturer agreed to contribute towards the parts.
Conclusion
- The business accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation to repair the consumer’s vehicle at no cost, and the case was closed.
