The consumer’s issue:
“My vehicle broke down and was taken into the dealership for a diagnostic. At all times, I was advised that my car needed an engine replacement, and after toing and froing, I settled on a quote and paid for the repair. Some 6,745 miles later, my injectors failed, and so I went back to the dealership to have this put right under the 12-month warranty. However, I was told that the business never replaced the injectors during the engine repair. I was of the understanding that injectors are part of an engine and therefore if replacing an engine, I would expect the injectors to have been replaced too. As the injectors have failed, I am expecting the business to put this right under the warranty.”
The accredited business’ response:
- All work undertaken by us was in good faith.
- The defective items at the time of repair were replaced as advised. This included the short motor of the engine and various other parts like gaskets etc.
- The fuel injectors were not replaced as they were not required at the time of repair.
- The fuel injectors were never mentioned as part of a repair, and there was neither the suggestion that they would be replaced.
- We know that replacement fuel injectors were not required as the car has subsequently been driven for 6,745 miles since the repair was carried out.
- It must be clarified that a fuel injector is by definition part of the vehicle fuel system, and is required like many other individual parts to make the engine run.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires the repairer to ensure they are exercising reasonable care and skill, be it when diagnosing the fault or carrying out the repair. This is reinforced by our Code of Practice for Service and Repair which requires the business to be competent in the work that they undertake.
- There has been a shortfall on the business’ part in clarifying the repair – if it was an engine replacement, one would expect the whole engine to be replaced. If it is only part of the engine being replaced, this needs to be specified from the outset – a recommendation made to the business by The Motor Ombudsman.
- There was no evidence in the form of an invoice or e-mail to say that the injectors would be replaced.
- Therefore, the argument from the consumer about the replaced fuel injectors failing was not deemed valid by the adjudicator.
Conclusion:
- As there was no evidence confirming that the fuel injectors would be replaced, The Motor Ombudsman could not ask the business to cover the cost of replacement injectors as there was never an agreement between the business and the consumer to have these parts replaced.
- Therefore, the case put forward by the consumer was not upheld by the adjudicator.
- However, if evidence is later submitted by the consumer about the standard of work around the fitment of the existing fuel injectors, The Motor Ombudsman will consider reviewing the case.
