The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a new hatchback in March 2019, and in October 2020, the vehicle suffered a breakdown. The vehicle was recovered to the business for investigation, and I was told the cost of the repair was going to be £240 due to damage caused by rodents.
A few days later, the business called me to inform me that the repair was now going to cost £714, but this was for the same repair as initially advised. I declined having the works carried out at this stage, and requested a meeting with one of the senior managers.
I found that the business was really unhelpful, and they were unable to provide a clear explanation as to why the price had increased so much. The business also refused to provide me with a copy of the invoice when requested.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for some form of goodwill, such as a free service, and an apology for the inconvenience this matter has caused me.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The vehicle was recovered to us as a non-start, and was still within the manufacturer’s warranty period. Therefore, no diagnostics time or charges were initially requested from the customer.
- On investigation, we found that there was evidence of rodent faeces in the engine and later established rodent damage to the wiring.
- We requested authorisation from the customer for further investigation, but the customer declined this as this would have been chargeable.
- The customer had a meeting with our advisor who explained that a payment of £240 was required for the initial investigation and that a repair was required.
- The customer declined to have any repairs carried out and instructed a claim through their insurance company.
- We carried out the repair to the damaged wiring to the fuel tank which took us 6.52 hours, but we only charged five hours’ labour.
- As this matter was resolved through the customer’s insurance company, the customer did not make any payment to us.
- We do not see any basis on which to provide goodwill, and we have already carried out the repair at a cheaper labour rate.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the submissions, and concluded that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the business failed to provide the correct information relating to the repair costs.
- Under the Service and Repair Code, a business is required to ensure that prior authorisation is sought from the customer if it becomes apparent that additional time, labour or parts will be required. The evidence presented demonstrates that the business did this before completing any repairs to the vehicle.
- The damage to the vehicle was caused by rodents, and was therefore not due to a manufacturing defect. As a result, the customer would have been liable for the repair costs.
- The consumer declined to have the works carried out and sought a repair via their insurance company. Whilst the consumer had to pay an excess, this is not something The Motor Ombudsman could consider as part of their claim.
- The adjudicator advised the customer they were entitled to contact their insurance company directly if they were dissatisfied with the excess cost.
- The adjudicator concluded that the business acted in accordance with the Service and Repair Code, and there was no evidence to demonstrate that the business failed to provide a reasonable service.
- Therefore, the customer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudication, but the consumer did not respond. It was therefore accepted that both parties accepted the decision, and the case was closed.
