The consumer’s issue:
“I asked the accredited business to change the slave cylinder on my car, and when they said the clutch needed replacing too, I gave them the go ahead to do the work at a cost of £550. A few days later, my vehicle developed serious faults, with loose bolts on the gearbox mount causing the driveshaft to fail. I therefore took my car to another garage that said the fault was caused by the work done by the accredited business. Because I was many miles away from the accredited business, I asked the garage to rectify the faults and paid £330 for the repair – luckily they didn’t charge me for labour, so I only paid for the part. Initially, the accredited business said they would pay me back for the £330, but I wanted compensation for the issue as well, so I asked for £500. However, they refused and said that, as I’d broken the contract by having the repairs carried out by a different garage, they weren’t going to help.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We explained to the consumer that they should have contacted us first before allowing another garage to carry out the repair.
- They were only five miles away from us and they had the car for three days, so there was plenty of time to let us know what had happened.
- We were not given the chance to investigate the problem, and when we sought legal advice, we were told that they should have given us the opportunity to rectify the problem if it was our fault.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, because in their opinion, the customer had provided enough evidence to demonstrate that the accredited business caused the serious faults that developed following the repair.
- That’s because the accredited business would have had to unbolt the gearbox to gain access to the clutch, so for the bolts to be loose so soon after the repair means they probably failed to tighten them correctly.
- As such, the accredited business had failed to act with reasonable care and skill, putting them in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair.
- However, the adjudicator agreed that the consumer had the opportunity to let the accredited business know about the issue before they authorised repairs at another garage.
- Whilst on this occasion, the consumer didn’t pay for labour, the adjudicator was clear that if labour had been charged, the consumer would only have received back the cost of the parts, as they had failed to keep their losses to a minimum. The adjudicator therefore awarded the consumer £330 from the accredited business.
Conclusion:
- The consumer and accredited business accepted the adjudicator’s outcome, and the case was closed.
