The consumer’s issue:
“I took my eleven-year-old car to my local dealer workshop due to my vehicle experiencing a loss of power, and the engine cutting out. I therefore paid £200 for diagnostics to find out what was wrong. They confirmed the problem as being with the fuse box and glow plugs rather than with the electronic control unit (ECU), so they replaced the fuse box plus the glow plugs, and this cost me in the region of £1,000.
However, after I collected my vehicle, the loss of power problem persisted, and the business wanted another £200 for extra diagnostics to confirm if the issue was with the fuse box again or with the ECU. Fortunately, they ended up running a free diagnostics test, and confirmed that the problem was with the ECU.
I therefore believe that I was misinformed following the first test, and was made to pay for diagnostics and the replacement of a part which was not needed, as the fault turned out to be the ECU rather than the fuse box. To resolve my complaint, I am therefore looking for a partial refund of the diagnostic costs that I should not have incurred in the first place.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer brought their vehicle to us to investigate an issue with the vehicle experiencing a loss of power, and the engine cutting out.
- The vehicle did not start when we initially inspected it, and after diagnostics, we determined there was no output coming from the fuse box. This indicated that it was faulty, alongside a problem with the glow plugs.
- We therefore replaced the fuse box and glow plugs, after which the vehicle ran without fault, meaning the consumer paid for the repairs and collected their car.
- However, around a couple of weeks later, the vehicle was returned to us, with the consumer alleging it was losing power again.
- We inspected the vehicle free of charge this time, in light of the recent visit. The investigation led to the conclusion that the ECU had now suffered from a fault. The previous fault to the fuse box had to be resolved, before this now became apparent, as the relevant components run through the fuse box. None of the original fault codes were present on the second visit.
- Unfortunately, the manufacturer was not producing the ECU for a vehicle of this age, so it could not be replaced.
- We do not believe that the consumer is entitled to a partial refund, as the consumer’s car has been repaired with a reasonable level of skill and care at all times.
- Therefore, we are unable to provide any further assistance to the consumer on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, which consisted of the correspondence between both parties, vehicle health checks, diagnostics, invoices, and relevant job cards.
- The adjudicator explained that the evidential burden of proof was on the consumer to demonstrate that the business had either misdiagnosed or misadvised them about the work required to the vehicle.
- Whilst the consumer had indicated the belief of being misinformed about the original diagnosis involving the front fuse box needing to be replaced, there had been no evidence provided, such as a second opinion from any other garage, or a third-party independent inspection to support the opinion of a misdiagnosis.
- The adjudicator highlighted that the fault codes provided with the diagnostics were all consistent with the conclusion that the fuse box was initially faulty, followed by the ECU later on.
- The age of the vehicle was also noted, along with the fact it had covered over 134,000 miles by this point, making it more susceptible to underlying faults.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator therefore determined that, based on the evidence, it was more likely than not that the business correctly carried out the diagnosis and repair process with the reasonable skill and care required.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not find there to be a breach by the business of the Service and Repair Code, and made the decision to not uphold the case in the consumer’s favour. The case was then closed.
