The consumer’s issue:
“I took my SUV to the dealership for a service, as it had broken down and the window was faulty. The business repaired the window and told me to come and collect the car. I therefore picked the car up, but the very same day, the car broke down again and I had to push it out of the road. However, I could not take it back to the dealership, as it was Christmas Eve and they had already closed by this point and were not open until January.
I spoke to the business after the Christmas break, but they gave me an excuse about the vehicle’s age and condition as a cause of the breakdown, which I did not agree with.
Because I was not happy with the dealership, the car was repaired by a third-party dealership, and I would therefore like to claim the money back from the business that originally repaired the car.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer had not raised this complaint with us before taking it to The Motor Ombudsman. As a result, we had no opportunity to inspect what the vehicle owner claimed was not performed with reasonable skill and care. We can provide our understanding of the works carried out, but overall, we respectfully dispute the allegations made by the customer.
- When the vehicle was booked in, the issue was related to reports of the car cutting out and the nearside front window not working. We scheduled a standard vehicle health check, and when the customer brought the vehicle to us, and we started our investigations, the time was split equally between the performance (cutting out) and the window issue.
- From our inspection of the car cutting out, we found that the injection system was suffering from an electrical short to ground and that we needed further investigation time to look at the wiring which led from and to the engine injectors.
- Upon further review, we then found oil leaking into the Engine Control Module (ECM), the wiring harness for the injector routes, and into the engine bay area. We also noted that the harness casing was split, which was letting oil out, causing misfires. We recommended a new harness and a clean of the connectors in the ECM area.
- We then undertook wiring checks to the front door relating to the window concern. We also noticed that the front door was not locking, and identified that the latch was faulty. We could also see that the window regulator was faulty and there was wiring at the hinge point of the door which was in poor condition and required repairs.
- The customer authorised repair work upon all the components that we had investigated and identified issues with. This was carried out over two days, and we advised the customer that an oil service was needed, as we were of the opinion that the vehicle had not been serviced for a considerable amount of time.
- Following the repairs, we test drove the vehicle, and did not have any further instances of breakdown/cutting out.
- We did however, explain to the customer that there was a real possibility that other parts which were not immediately identifiable could have been affected by the oil ingress that had occurred. We further advised that this could present itself in further faults, including those that may be intermittent and that the customer would need to bring the car back to us if additional issues came up.
- Overall, we do not feel that we are liable to cover the cost of the repairs in this instance, as we had not been given an opportunity to inspect the vehicle following the fault which occurred after our work.
- Therefore, we could not establish whether it was our workmanship that had caused the issues in the car, or if it was due to another underlying issue which we reasonably could not have foreseen.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator said that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that the dealership had failed to use reasonable skill and care when conducting repairs on their vehicle.
- The adjudicator considered the evidence from both parties, and noted that there was a very short period of time between when the dealership had carried out work on the vehicle and when the failure had occurred. However, owing to the technical nature of the issue at hand, the adjudicator considered that this evidence in isolation would not be sufficient to meet the standard of proof required.
- The adjudicator then pointed out that the consumer had not submitted any independent technical evidence to support their argument that the dealership had failed to use reasonable skill and care when carrying out the repairs on the car. Owing to the facts of this case, the adjudicator considered that evidence of this nature would be necessary to show that there had been a breach of the Service and Repair Code.
- The adjudicator also considered the issue of whether the consumer had raised the complaint with the dealership in the first instance. Based on the evidence available, the adjudicator reached the conclusion that they had not. As a result, there had been a failure in the procedure of the Consumer Rights Act with respect to the service contract, as the consumer had proceeded to have the vehicle repaired without notifying the dealership. This deprived the business of their one-shot remedy at repair allowed to them under the law if there was evidence that their workmanship was the cause.
- Therefore, considering the two conclusions reached by the adjudicator, they could not find, on the balance of probabilities that there had been a breach of the Service and Repair Code. As a result, they were not able to uphold the customer’s complaint on this basis.
Conclusion:
- The dealership accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer did not provide any further response, thereby closing the case.
