Incomplete SUV service

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used 18-plate SUV (registered in August 2018) in May 2019, and in June 2022, I took the car back to the selling dealership for its major service in-line with the 40,000-mile interval when the car was four years old. The service highlighted that the brake discs needed to be changed, so I shopped around and took my SUV to an independent garage, where it was cheaper to have the work done.

When the car was on site, the repairer checked the oil and filter, and it appeared that my SUV had not been serviced, despite visiting the dealership very recently, as both were dirty, meaning the garage had to drain the oil and top it back up. The business advised me to lodge a complaint with the dealership, and they directed me to take my complaint to their head office.

They responded by saying that the oil was changed during the service, but was black because it was not completely drained. I was therefore still unclear as to whether the filter had been changed.

As a resolution to my complaint, and as I believe that I was misled and paid for a vehicle service that did not happen, I am looking for the dealership to refund me the sum of £315 in light of what happened.”

The accredited business’ response:

The issues raised by the vehicle owner were brought to our attention, and we reviewed the service history of the vehicle and technical notes.
Our investigation showed that we carried out the service correctly, and that any parts replaced whilst the car was in our care, were documented correctly.
Due to there being no evidence to support the claims made by the consumer, the request for a refund was rejected.

The adjudication outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of proving that the business has not serviced their vehicle, despite paying for it.
The adjudicator also pointed out in their decision that a business is required to carry out work on customer vehicles with reasonable skill and care, and that failure to do so would be considered a breach of the Service and Repair Code.
In terms of the documentation supplied by the dealership, it can be seen that the business completed a major service on the consumer’s vehicle, which included a vehicle health check and fuel flush, as well as an oil change.
The evidence also included the vehicle’s service history and a technician’s report, including the observations made and parts that were replaced.
Similarly, the adjudicator reviewed the evidence presented by the consumer, which included a video of the alleged oil that was drained from the SUV. The adjudicator pointed out, however, that it was unclear where the oil came from, as it could have come from any vehicle.
With regards to the third-party garage’s invoice, this was submitted with only one line stating “ full service and labour.” As this was not as comprehensive and as detailed as the dealership’s invoice, the adjudicator did not find this to be sufficient evidence of the business not completing the service, as claimed by the consumer.
In summary, the adjudicator decided not to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, as there were insufficient grounds to reasonably demonstrate that, on a balance of probabilities, the business was in breach of the Service and Repair Code. The information from both parties, when weighed up against each other, suggested it was more likely that the service was completed by the business with reasonable skill and care.