Dislodged breather pipe

The consumer’s issue:

“I took my 12-plate MPV to the dealership to investigate the cause of an amber engine warning light in June 2018. Following an investigation, the business recommended the replacement of my car’s oxygen sensors, although it was unsure why the problem arose.

The part was changed, but this did not cure the problems affecting my car, which meant that it failed its MOT in August 2019 due to the illumination of the warning light. The dealership therefore reset the light to enable it to pass the MOT, but the issue remained.

I then took the car back in January 2020, and after a significant amount of diagnostic time was paid for without the cause of the problem being identified, the dealership consulted the car’s manufacturer, and the problem, which was with a dislodged breather pipe, was resolved in March 2020.

I feel that the costs I incurred with the replacement of the oxygen sensors, and the diagnostic investigations which were carried out, were unnecessary, and I am therefore seeking a refund of £800 for this work.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • While we appreciate the cause of the problems with the consumer’s car took time to diagnose and investigate, this was all done with the customer’s authority.
  • In addition, as the cause of the problem with the car wasn’t readily apparent from an inspection or interrogation of the car’s stored fault data, the steps taken in carrying out the diagnosis were in line with the technical guidance provided by the manufacturer.
  • The consumer was also given a discount on the cost of the parts and labour associated with the work, so we do not believe that a refund is due to them.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and noted that, while the replacement of the oxygen sensor may have ultimately proven unnecessary, there was no evidence to show that this ought to have been apparent to the dealership at the time this work was recommended and completed.
  • The adjudicator explained that, provided the steps taken by the business were based on sound guidance and/or the experience of the individual technician that was involved, then it could not be concluded that any step taken in the process to rectify the fault was not completed without reasonable skill and care.
  • As there was no evidence to show that a dislodged breather pipe ought to have been apparent to the dealership before it had completed diagnostic and repair works, meaning the adjudicator concluded that no refund was due to the customer.
  • Therefore, the case was not upheld in the customer’s favour as there had been no breach of the Service and Repair Code.

Conclusion:

  • Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.