The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 15-plate saloon in September 2018, and on 25th August 2021, I visited a garage to have four new tyres fitted, for the wheels to be realigned (at a cost of £65) and for the air conditioning to be serviced.
Two days later, I was travelling abroad and I noticed that the wheels had not been aligned correctly, thereby causing premature wear to my new tyres. When I got to my destination, I visited a garage, and paid £28 for the wheels to be aligned once again, therefore interrupting my holiday. It was also found that one of the tyre valves was missing.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for a full refund of the initial and subsequent repair costs (totalling £93) that I had to pay for the wheel alignment.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Based on the images submitted, it is our position the consumer has hit a pothole or a speed bump, or mounted a kerb on the nearside, as the offside of the vehicle is showing no damage.
- In the interest of consumer satisfaction, we are willing to refund the sum of £28 that the consumer paid to the third-party garage in full and final settlement of the complaint.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the business had failed to apply reasonable skill and care whilst carrying out the work, and that their actions had caused subsequent damage.
- The consumer was required to submit evidence showing the business had failed to carry out the wheel alignment correctly, and that the premature tyre wear was due to their actions.
- Considering vehicles develop faults due to a wide range of reasons, it was not sufficient for the consumer to state that, simply because the business had worked on the vehicle, any issue with it or with a specific component thereafter was related to their quality of work. The onus was therefore on the customer to provide evidence that there had been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Service and Repair Code.
- The business stated the damage they observed on the tyres was conclusive with a vehicle that had gone over a pothole.
- The adjudicator explained the consumer had submitted evidence which showed the re-alignment data and the cost of the subsequent repair.
- The adjudicator acknowledged that, whilst the consumer had the burden of supporting their position, the business was also required to submit evidence which showed what work they carried out and why they believed the damage was due to potholes.
- The business had not supplied any data demonstrating the repairs completed when the vehicle was in their possession (job card/invoices), confirmation that when the vehicle left their premises the wheels had been correctly aligned (alignment data), and how/why they have concluded the damage was consistent with potholes.
- The adjudicator reminded the business that, if a vehicle had been driven over a pothole, the damage may be extensive. For example, damage to tyres (tread separation, sidewall bulges or punctures), wheel rims (scrapes, wheel bend, distortion, loss of an airtight seal with the tyre), misaligned suspension, body and exhaust scrapes (damage to the under carriage, dents to the exhaust pipe etc).
- In summary, the adjudicator was not satisfied that the business had demonstrated they had carried out a wheel alignment correctly, or that the damage was consistent with a vehicle going over a pothole.
- As a result, the adjudicator upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and found the business to have breached the Service and Repair Code.
- In addition, the adjudicator reminded both parties that a remedy was required to be fair. It would have been unfair to allow the consumer a full refund of the invoice they had paid for the work carried out on 25th August 2021, as it also included four new tyres and an air conditioning service.
- The adjudicator maintained the customer was only entitled to the realignment cost from the aforementioned invoice, and a full refund of £28 from the garage that conducted the work abroad.
- Whilst the consumer stated that the incorrect alignment caused the new tyres to experience premature wear, the adjudicator explained that it was difficult to determine whether this was down to the incorrect realignment or the return journey from abroad.
- Therefore, the adjudicator did not make a recommendation for a refund of the tyres as this was not considered to be fair or proportionate based on the issue experienced by the consumer.
Conclusion
- Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome. The business issued the consumer with a full refund for the two wheel alignment costs they had incurred. The case was then closed.
