The consumer’s issue:
“I booked my vehicle in for a gearbox service as I had the error message about the gearbox oil overheating. The garage did the work, and shortly after driving off, the vehicle suffered a complete transmission failure. I cannot accept this is a coincidence, and I am disappointed that the business did not accept liability for the damage and their lack of professionalism.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer informed us that the gearbox warning light had come on in the past.
- The booking was made to replace the gearbox oil, rather than the gearbox itself, in an effort to resolve the issue.
- We did inform the customer that the gearbox oil has never been replaced, which should be done every 38,000 miles – the current mileage stands at 111,454.
- The failure to keep to the maintenance schedule could have an impact on the performance of the gearbox and its lifespan, as detailed in the owner’s handbook.
- We do not feel that we have acted incorrectly. The fault was present prior to his visit, and the diagnostic logs from the vehicle provide confirmation of this.
- Also, in the absence of any service history since 2013, or any evidence of gearbox oil changes having ever been carried out, we rectified the gearbox oil leak and provided suggestions for the repair.
- The vehicle now has no oil leak, but does have a further issue needing investigation (which occurred prior to the customer coming to us).
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator noted that the specific cause of failure for this vehicle is yet unknown from the diagnostics procedure.
- However, the reason for the consumer engaging the business for the work in question was due to there being an issue with the gearbox. It is suspected that this was due to a lack of servicing.
- The business undertook a replacement of the oil, which was a specific performance in contract (i.e. asking them to do one specific set of work in exchange for a specific amount of money).
- This means that the business is only legally liable if they did not do that work correctly, and failing to do the work correctly, caused the failure.
- The evidence did not point to a failure of workmanship or care by the business. What is more likely is that the replacement of oil alone on a failing part was too little too late to save the gearbox from failure which was inevitable.
Conclusion:
- In respect of this, the adjudicator could not find a breach of its Codes of Practice, and could therefore not uphold the consumer’s claim.
