The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 15-plate saloon in February 2020, and on 7th March 2021, I took my car to the local dealership, as there was a recall on it. Whilst it was in their care, the business called to explain that the car had been damaged due to falling six feet off of the ramp. They said that repairs had been carried out, and the car remained in the workshop for six weeks due to the delay in the remedial parts associated with the recall.
They are now expecting me to pay for an investigation because my car failed its MOT on 3rd March 2021. However, due to the accident, I am unsure as to whether the vehicle is roadworthy or safe. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for any repairs to be carried out free of charge.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We can confirm that the customer’s vehicle had not fallen from a ramp, and no discussion to any damage took place.
- The vehicle had a health check, and several issues were reported to the customer, none of which were relevant to the recall.
- The car came to us for a steering rack check under a recall and required a replacement.
- The part was ordered, and was on backorder for some time, during which a loan vehicle was supplied to the consumer as a goodwill gesture.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the issues suffered with the vehicle were the result of the workmanship of the business.
- The adjudicator stated that it was not sufficient to state that, simply because the business repaired the car, any issue thereafter is related to their workmanship.
- From the evidence provided, the vehicle was recalled to have two aspects of work completed under the manufacturer’s warranty.
- The adjudicator noted that, before any work was conducted, the business carried out a vehicle health check which identified various issues with the car, which were unrelated to the outstanding recall work.
- Within the customer’s submission, it stated that the business confirmed that the vehicle fell from a ramp suffering from damage. The business however, disputed this.
- The adjudicator said that The Motor Ombudsman is only able to rely on the documentary evidence provided, rather than any verbal discussions which took place between the business and the consumer.
- The information supplied only demonstrated that recall works were completed and there were no issues with these.
- The adjudicator understood that the parts for the recall were delayed, which was outside of the repairer’s control, as these were ordered directly from the manufacturer, but a courtesy car was provided during the time it took for the repairs to be completed.
- Whilst there was no obligation to do so under the Service and Repair Code, this was something that the adjudicator would have expected the business or the manufacturer to do.
- Considering the evidence provided, the adjudicator did not find a breach of the Service and Repair Code or that the business failed to carry out the repairs using reasonable skill or care.
- As a result, the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld in their favour.
Conclusion
- The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome in the allotted time, and the case was closed.
