The consumer’s issue:
“I took my 15-plate coupé to the dealership for a service in line with my service plan, and they told me that I needed to pay £615 for a software update. After complaining to management, they said the update was included in the service, so they didn’t charge me for it. However, they tried to overcharge me on many different issues and gave me false information.
They have made me pay for things that did not need to be done or were already part of the service, including making me pay for a spark plug that should have been included as part of the plan. To resolve my complaint with the business, I am looking for the remaining cost of my service plan to be written off.”
The accredited business’ response:
- On 24th February 2020, the car came in for a service, and the customer reported that the engine management light was on, and that the vehicle jolted during acceleration.
- We advised the customer that there would be a one-hour diagnostic charge, and the check identified a number of faults, so we recommended that an ECU re-calibration/reset would be best. The consumer agreed to this, and upon the ECU reset, the fault codes cleared, and the engine management warning light turned off.
- On 2nd March 2020, the customer returned complaining that the engine management light had turned back on, so we explained that additional diagnostics would be required.
- Upon further inspection, we identified rodent damage along the vehicle’s main wiring harness, which indicated that the fault codes were caused by an intermittent break in the wiring. As such, the customer was informed that we would need to examine the wiring loom.
- The customer declined further inspection and stated that they wanted a refund for the one-hour diagnostics which led to the ECU reset, which we proceeded to give them, even though we were right in our approach.
- Spark plugs were covered in the service, so we are confused as to why this issue was raised by the consumer.
- In summary, as a dealership, we have spent over five hours on the customer’s vehicle and no charge was made, and we have always acted in good faith and been very transparent with the consumer.
- Therefore, in light of the above, we are not prepared to offer the customer any form of refund.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that, just because repairs do not fix the initial symptoms, or the engine management light returns, then the cause of failure was not correctly diagnosed. This is because the symptoms experienced could be due to multiple faulty parts, and therefore it is possible for the business to correctly replace a failed part and for the initial symptoms to persist because of an underlying fault which had not been identified.
- Based on the evidence presented, the adjudicator did not find that the business had failed to follow a reasonable diagnostic process.
- On the issue of the business charging for work they did not do, or charging for work that was already a part of the service, the technician time log and job cards did not show that the business had done this.
- Therefore, in conclusion, the evidence did not demonstrate that the workmanship used in the repair works fell below the expected standard of reasonable skill and care, meaning that the complaint could not be upheld in the customer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- Neither party requested an appeal of the adjudication decision made, and the case was closed.
