Puncture repair quality

The consumer’s issue:

“I took my car to the business because I had a puncture. They used a temporary repair kit and did not inform me of this. My tyre deflated in the next couple of days and another garage I took the vehicle to stated that it was a bad repair. The business offered me a refund as a gesture of goodwill, but I would like the business to accept in writing that the work that they did was dangerous.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We advised the consumer that a new tyre should be fitted to rectify this issue. However, he declined, and asked instead for a repair of the puncture which we proceeded to carry out.
  • We admit we should have informed the customer that a temporary repair kit was used and have refunded the charge for the repair.
  • We maintain there was nothing unsafe about the work we carried out.
  • As we have not had an opportunity to inspect the repair, we do not accept the repair was done to a dangerous standard.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that the decision to have the tyre repaired and not replaced was the consumer’s decision, and therefore, the business could not be held liable for this.
  • As the business was not given the opportunity to inspect the repair, the adjudicator decided it would be unfair to accept that the remedial work was dangerous.
  • The complaint was upheld on the basis that the business should have made the consumer aware that a temporary repair kit was being used in order to manage their expectations.
  • The resolution suggested by the adjudicator was a written apology for not informing the consumer that a temporary repair kit was used.


  • The customer and accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator and the case was closed.