The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new SUV in September 2015 from a dealership, and they replaced the engine in March 2018 after a fault was diagnosed. The day after collecting the car following the work on the engine, I was unable to start it and had to call the breakdown recovery service. After looking at the car, the recovery technician came to the conclusion that it must have been a faulty battery and fitted a new one, which therefore allowed me to set off for work.
However, during the journey, the engine unexpectedly cut out at 50 mph, which brought my car to an abrupt halt without any warning, therefore leaving me unable to control the vehicle. Due to this being sudden and unforeseen, I was lucky the car behind didn’t drive into me and nobody was hurt.
After being stranded for several hours at the roadside, another technician from the breakdown recovery service arrived, and he was unable to confirm the cause of the problem, but suggested that it could have been an electrical fault. Reference was also made to the fact that the work done on the engine was poor, that the coolant hose was rubbing on the gear linkage, and that the hose clip was loose on the air intake pipe.
My SUV was therefore towed back to the same dealership, where the manager was very defensive when confronted about the mechanical issues, and had no valid explanation about why they had occurred. Nevertheless, the business called me the day after and explained that the problems were down to a trapped wire.
I also complained to the manufacturer, and they offered goodwill in the form of an extended warranty for another 12 months, but I deemed this to be unsatisfactory based on what I had gone through. I am therefore looking for compensation for the poor customer service, for stress and my life being put in danger, stress, and for the loss of time and money dealing with this.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We supplied a loan vehicle to the customer to keep them mobile when the engine was replaced and during the consumer’s second visit for the repairs.
- On the morning after the customer got their car back following the engine replacement, the breakdown recovery service was called and confirmed that the battery was faulty. This is a concern that is known to the manufacturer.
- When the breakdown service was called that same day, they identified a clip that was loose and a hose was adrift, and when the car was returned to us, we identified that the terminal on the battery was not tight, so the car would not start. We therefore secured it, and returned the car to the customer.
- As the breakdown recovery service were the last people to touch the battery terminal, it is difficult to determine whether the consumer’s issue was caused by us or them.
- We directed the consumer to the manufacturer to see if they could offer any form of goodwill, and they covered all of the consumer’s costs.
- We believe that we have been open and honest throughout, and have kept the customer on the road to keep their inconvenience to a minimum.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator stated that they don’t award compensation to consumers for things that are not easily quantifiable, such as poor customer service, loss of earnings, inconvenience or stress.
- In this case, the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the issues that they suffered related directly to the work carried out by the dealership.
- Taking into consideration that vehicles develop faults due to a wide range of issues, it wasn’t appropriate to conclude that, simply because the dealership repaired the car, any issue thereafter was related to the work undertaken by the business.
- In the absence of any information to demonstrate that a failure to conduct the work with reasonable and skill caused the faults to occur, and that a breach of the Service and Repair Code had occurred, the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld in their favour by The Motor Ombudsman.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
