The consumer’s issue:
“My car went into the dealership due to it not starting. Upon the business’s investigation, they advised me that the fuel rail needed replacing. I authorised this repair, but it did not rectify the fault. A further investigation was carried out by the business who found that the fuel pump had failed. I therefore agreed for the fuel pump to be replaced. After changing the fuel pump, the business learnt that the whole fuel system was contaminated, and my vehicle needed a new fuel pump and fuel injectors. I would like to know why the dealership did not diagnose the fuel contamination in the fuel pump first, because if they had done so, I would have not needed the injectors, fuel rail and fuel pump to be changed twice. I am therefore seeking a refund of the costs I incurred in having to replace these parts.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We diagnosed the failure to be the result of a lack of fuel pressure.
- We found the fuel rail to be faulty and replaced it. At the same time, we inspected the fuel pump and this was found to be running fine.
- We road tested the car which revealed the vehicle to lose power. We found the fuel pump had failed, so we exchanged it for a new one.
- However, upon further investigation, we found metal filings from the previously replaced fuel pump to have contaminated the whole fuel system. This meant the customer needed a new fuel pump, fuel rail and injectors. However, we managed to save the fuel rail we had replaced but she did need the fuel pump and injectors.
- We approached the vehicle manufacturer who contributed towards the cost of the replacement of the injectors and fuel pump, so the customer only paid for the one fuel pump that was needed.
- We applied a lot of goodwill to the repair, and the bill to the customer was reduced significantly from £4,000 to £2,000.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Service and Repair Code of Practice obligate a business to ensure that they carry out a repair exercising reasonable care and skill. This is seen by the dealership being competent in the work they carry out and having the required tools to ensure the work is completed to a satisfactory level.
- Failure to exercise reasonable care and skill would entitle the customer to a repeat performance or their money back.
- The adjudicator recognised that the diagnostic process was not as simple as the consumer would have liked, but given the nature of the goods in question i.e. a vehicle being a mechanical product, the diagnosis is rarely straightforward.
- However, the adjudicator did express concern over the dealership’s inability to diagnose the metal filings initially and ensured that the consumer only paid one diagnostic fee throughout.
- Nonetheless, whilst the repeat performance, which is what the consumer was entitled to, was successful, it did not entitle the consumer to a free repair to the fuel rail, fuel pump and the injectors as these faults were not in any way caused by the business.
- At the same time, the adjudicator did not feel the consumer should have had to have paid twice for the fuel pump.
- Although the vehicle manufacturer had contributed towards the cost of the replacing the part, meaning that the consumer only paid for labour, the adjudicator awarded a refund of the labour cost to the consumer for the installation of the second fuel pump.
Conclusion:
- Whilst the adjudicator appreciates the costs involved in the repair, there is no evidence that the dealership had caused any of the faults, which if they did, would have entitled the consumer to a free repair.
- However, the adjudicator was concerned about the initial diagnostic which failed to pick up the contamination to the whole fuel system, and as such, ensured that the consumer was only charged for one diagnostic fee.
- Therefore, the second diagnostic would be seen as a repeat performance under the law. The adjudicator also felt that off the back of this poor diagnostic, the consumer should not have had to pay for two fuel pumps.
- Therefore, as the second fuel pump had been paid for by the vehicle manufacturer, the adjudicator duly awarded a refund of the labour costs for the work on the second pump only.
