Pre-MOT repairs

The consumer’s issue:

I took my 2007 plate vehicle to a garage one week before its MOT. Three mechanics looked at it, including the garage’s MOT tester. I was shown what work was required by these mechanics which was stated only to be the suspension arms. I questioned if this was all that was needed for the vehicle to pass its MOT and, after being told it was, I agreed for the work to be done. At the time, I said that the cost of the work was a lot compared to the vehicle’s value and that I didn’t want to spend it if the vehicle was going to fail its MOT. At this point, I should have been advised that the work was uneconomical due to the chassis being rotten and that it would fail its MOT the next week, which is exactly what happened. Unfortunately, I have now had to get rid of the car due to the repair cost exceeding the vehicle’s value. I am therefore looking for a full refund of the work carried out, which cost £250, as I think the garage should have been able to advise me of the corrosion, and I could have subsequently made a fully informed decision about whether to carry out the repairs.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The consumer brought the car in for a knocking noise.
  • A free of charge inspection was carried out in the workshop which found excessive play in both lower ball joints, attached to the lower arm.
  • At this point, we were only asked to inspect and we did not carry out a full car inspection for any further issues.
  • A quotation was given to resolve the reported issue.
  • This was accepted and the work was carried out.
  • We would never state that the vehicle will pass an MOT because this is something you cannot do until it is tested.
  • There is no contention that the issue was diagnosed incorrectly.
  • The car was returned on 20 January for an MOT and the car was failed on six items.
  • We do not feel that the corrosion would have been apparent due to its position and the lighting on different ramps.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator couldn’t uphold the customer’s complaint.
  • The garage had only been asked to diagnose the cause of the knocking noise, which they did – and there was nothing to suggest that diagnosis had been incorrect or that the work wasn’t required.
  • As the adjudicator wasn’t present at the time of the repairs, he was unable to say exactly what was discussed.
  • The consumer was unhappy as she said that she only went ahead with the repairs because she thought the car would pass the MOT and wanted the complaint to be considered by the ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman considered that, technically, the garage was not in breach of the Code of Practice for Service and Repair because, as the adjudicator concluded, they had been asked to diagnose and repair a fault which they did correctly.
  • However, when looking at the context of the complaint, the visit was a week before the car’s MOT was due.
  • The car was 10 years old and the repairs carried out were over half of the vehicle’s value.
  • The ombudsman therefore considered that the consumer would only have agreed to those repairs if she thought that was all the car needed to go through its MOT – or that she would only need to pay a small amount more for it to pass.
  • Additionally, considering the car failed the MOT on six items, she thought that the garage could have done more to point out to the consumer that there were problems with the car – and her decision as to whether to carry out the suspension arms repair would be more informed.
  • As such, the ombudsman considered that the garage should reimburse the consumer for 50% of the repair cost.

Conclusion:

  • The accredited business was found in breach of the Code of Practice for Service and Repair, and the consumer was awarded £125, thereby bringing the case to a close.