The consumer’s issue:
A consumer purchased a two-year-old used pick-up truck from a dealership that came with new front brake pads. After driving 13,000 miles during the first eight months of ownership, the consumer took the car back to the dealership for its first service, where the pads were found to be 10% worn. At this point, the consumer also reported a fault where the brakes were continuously engaged, and video evidence of the issue was also shown to the retailer.
However, an inspection by the business did not reveal any underlying issue, and subsequently returned the car to the consumer. With the problem still being present, the owner took the car to another dealership six months later, where a fault was identified, and they recommended that the discs and pads (which were 80% worn at this point) should be changed.
In light of this, the consumer went back to the selling dealership, and was offered a discount price of £570 for the repair as a gesture of goodwill, which the consumer went ahead with. However, they believed that, had the selling dealership correctly identified and rectified the fault when the concerns were first raised, rather than attributing this to wear and tear, the brakes would not have suffered further damage during the months that followed.
As a resolution to the complaint, the consumer was therefore looking for the selling dealership to carry out repairs to the brakes free of charge as a result of mis-diagnosing the issue on the initial visit.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and assessed whether the business had met its obligations under the Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair.
There were two elements to the complaint to consider: whether the dealership had exercised reasonable skill and care when inspecting the vehicle, and whether it had misdiagnosed the reported issue.
The consumer explained that the brakes had worn by 10% following their replacement and believed this was due to an underlying fault that the dealership had failed to identify. However, when the vehicle was presented to the dealership, there was no material evidence available to demonstrate that a fault was present at the time of its investigation, or any defect that required repairing.
In terms of the consumer taking the vehicle to another repairer, who the consumer said identified and rectified a fault, there was no documentation to support what issue had been diagnosed, what repairs were undertaken, or that the issue was present when the dealership previously inspected the vehicle.
As such, there was not enough evidence to conclude that the dealership had misdiagnosed the vehicle or failed to identify a fault that should reasonably have been detected.
Based on the available information, the adjudicator was unable to conclude that the dealership had carried out its inspection incorrectly or without reasonable skill and care.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no award was made. The case was then closed.
