The consumer’s issue:

The consumer booked their compact SUV in for its six-year service and MOT via an online repair platform, and the description said that the price included replacement brake hoses.

However, just before the service was due to take place, the consumer was contacted and was advised that there had been an error and that these components would not be part of the package, and would cost an additional £200. As the customer refused to pay this on request, the booking was cancelled, with the platform citing their terms and conditions.

The customer subsequently complained on numerous occasions, as they believed that the business had acted fraudulently, and had formed a valid contract, which they then breached.
As a resolution to their dispute, the consumer was seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience that had been caused, and damages for the missed service to their vehicle.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that, while they acknowledged that the price stated by the business was incorrect, and that the terms state that prices can be amended and bookings cancelled, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the terms were provided to the consumer at the time of booking.

The adjudicator also stated that it was reasonable for the consumer to expect that the business would honour the price of the package, inclusive of the brake hoses, at the time of booking, plus it was unreasonable to request the £200 just before the service was due to take place. Based on this, the adjudicator upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and advised that the most appropriate remedy in this case was an apology for inconvenience caused, as there was no financial loss in this case due to the consumer not having yet made any kind of payment.

However, the business disagreed with this outcome and requested a final decision. The ombudsman advised that, to form a contract for service and repair work, four elements must be present, namely an offer, acceptance of that offer, consideration provided (usually money), and an intention of both parties to create legal relations.

In relation to the servicing and repair of a vehicle, the contract is usually formed when the consumer brings the vehicle to a repairer’s premises and leaves it there with a promise to pay afterwards, in exchange for the business completing the work.

In this case, no money was exchanged before the consumer brought the vehicle on site, and the booking was cancelled prior to them even starting to travel to the business’ premises. As such, no consideration was provided, and no contract had been formed. The ombudsman concluded that the business was therefore within their rights to cancel the consumer’s booking.

However, the ombudsman noted that the business had incorrectly applied their terms, which stated that it was entitled to cancel the contact where there was an ‘obvious and unmistakable’ error of pricing. The ombudsman reviewed the terms, and found that a consumer would not reasonably have known whether brake hoses were included in a service, or would come at an additional cost of £200.

Conclusion:

As such, it was considered that there was a breach of the Service and Repair Code in relation to the accuracy of information provided at the time of booking. The ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, but did not make a financial award, as they had not formed a binding contract for the booking. The ombudsman instead recommended the business reviewed its processes and training to ensure the information they provided to consumers was as accurate and up-to-date as possible.