The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a new car in December 2013, and have completed around 14,000 miles. However, since March 2016, my vehicle has been back at the dealership five times due to the engine management light coming on, and because it kept stalling. Every time that the car has been in, the business diagnosed the inlet camshaft sensor as being at fault, and replaced the part under warranty.
When my vehicle went in for its end of new car warranty check in October 2016, and because the engine management light was on, the dealership replaced the sensor, but said that the engine would need to be stripped down for further investigation. It was booked in for November 2016 and fixed less than a day later, but to my knowledge, the engine was not taken apart.
Nevertheless, the same problem continued, and the engine management light came back on, and the dealership said the problem would sort itself out, but it didn’t. The car went back in in November 2017 and the camshaft sensor was replaced again under warranty. In April 2018, the fault re-occurred and the same problem was diagnosed, and the same part was replaced. When the car was being returned to us, the issue happened again, and the business said that the engine would once again need to be stripped down in order to investigate the issue.
As this was going to be a costly exercise, and as the fault kept re-occurring, I applied to the vehicle manufacturer for goodwill to cover the cost of this, which they agreed to. The diagnostics found that the car needed a new exhaust Vanos valve (a part that adjusts the timing), and the manufacturer agreed to pay for some of this, but I would need to pay the remaining £400.
Usually I wouldn’t disagree with paying this, but I have been a loyal customer for over 12 years and have spent tens of thousands of pounds in servicing and repair costs. My complaint here is that this on-going issue should have been diagnosed correctly while the car was still under the original warranty, and the dealership is basically making money from their mis-diagnoses and are now charging us for the work. I am therefore looking for the entire cost of repair to be covered by the dealership and to not have to pay the outstanding £400.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Having taken the time to review the case, we can confirm that the repair that consumer has a dispute about (i.e. the replacement of the exhaust Vanos valve), is not related to the fault that took place in 2016.
- Although the car may have shown similar symptoms on both occasions, the fault codes stored and the subsequent repair that took place were completely different.
- In addition, the diagnosis and repairs completed have all been carried out with due care and skill by trained technicians using vehicle manufacturer-approved tools and equipment.
- Furthermore, once the fault in question was diagnosed, we contacted the vehicle manufacturer to seek goodwill to support the customer and they were able to cover the entire cost of the diagnostics and parts, as well as 50% of the labour cost.
- This decision was made purely as a goodwill gesture, and the manufacturer was under no obligation to offer any support to the consumer.
- We also discussed the issue with the customer at the time of the repair, and they authorised for the work to proceed knowing that he had to pay a contribution.
- They also did not choose to purchase an extended warranty agreement, which would have covered the cost of this repair in full. Fortunately for the consumer, the manufacturer was able to assist on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator stated that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the mechanical issues were directly related to the workmanship of the dealership.
- Therefore, in order to uphold the customer’s complaint, the adjudicator had to be more sure than not, that the failure to carry out repairs with reasonable skill and care resulted in the business not correctly diagnosing the cause of the engine management light coming on until after the new car warranty had expired.
- The dealership said that the fault that led to the warranty repairs it undertook between 2016 and 2018 were unrelated that to that which led to the replacement of the Vanos valve.
- Unfortunately, whilst the adjudicator appreciated that the consumer may be dubious about the diagnosis in the circumstances, they had no evidence to show that the issue with the Vanos valve was present, and that it should have been identified and rectified whilst the consumer’s new car warranty was in force.
- Therefore, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint to have the cost of the repair covered in full.
Conclusion:
- The customer and accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator, and the case was closed.
