The consumer’s issue:
The consumer claimed that the dealership had damaged the rear differential of their vehicle when they previously repaired its pinion seal two months earlier. Although the business initially disputed the consumer’s allegations, they accepted responsibility for the additional repair costs after commissioning an independent inspection by a third-party company. The inspection revealed that the repair methods used during the earlier rear differential work were not executed with reasonable care and skill, compromising its integrity and requiring its replacement.
While the business agreed to reimburse the consumer for the additional repair costs they incurred elsewhere, the consumer sought further compensation. They believed that the dealership should also cover the cost of a small rental car during the period when their vehicle was unroadworthy and alleged that the business had discriminated against them based on their gender, as they initially did not take the consumer’s complaint seriously.
In response, the business explained that they initially contested the consumer’s claim of rear differential damage, as the only evidence presented was that they had completed work in the area two months earlier. They did not believe they were responsible for the damage, and arranged for a third-party inspection. After receiving the report, the dealership reconsidered their position and agreed to cover the full cost of the necessary repairs to replace the rear differential, and offered an additional £250 as a goodwill gesture for inconvenience. However, the business declined to pay compensation for costs the consumer had not actually incurred, such as for a rental vehicle that they had ultimately not paid for.
The case outcome:
Considering the available evidence, the adjudicator concluded that, while the initial repairs were not carried out with reasonable care and skill, the business’s offer to resolve the complaint was fair, and even exceeded their obligations by providing a goodwill gesture for inconvenience, which The Motor Ombudsman does not typically award. The adjudicator agreed that reimbursing the consumer for the additional repair costs incurred at a third-party dealership was the appropriate resolution to the complaint.
The adjudicator also determined that the hire car costs for which the consumer sought compensation were hypothetical losses. Since the consumer had not actually incurred these costs, the adjudicator could not award the compensation being sought.
Additionally, the adjudicator found that it was reasonable for the business to initially contest the consumer’s allegations of poor repairs, given that they had not been presented with sufficient evidence to suggest they were responsible for the damage to the rear differential. The adjudicator noted that the business acted appropriately by proposing an independent inspection of the vehicle, which they arranged in cooperation with the consumer.
Finally, the adjudicator recognised that it was beyond The Motor Ombudsman’s remit to make rulings on discrimination claims. Any complaints of this nature would need to be addressed through the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).
