The consumer’s issue:

The consumer took their 14-plate premium estate car to a franchise dealership in mid-July 2021 due to a rubbing noise whilst driving. They investigated the problem, but kept changing their diagnosis of the fault that had occurred. Despite the car still not working, the dealership charged the consumer around £6,500 for the work that had been carried out without providing a quote before it was undertaken, and said the issue was due to a front wheel bearing that needed to be replaced.

The consumer returned to the dealership in mid-September 2021, but the car broke down on the way to the business. According to the customer, the business again mis-diagnosed the parts that had malfunctioned, and was eventually informed that the car would need a new engine at an additional cost of £13,000, which was more than the vehicle was worth.

The consumer also provided photos of new parts, such as a fuel pump, which had been left in the car, still in its original packaging, indicating components that had not been changed.

To resolve the dispute, the consumer was looking to be reimbursed for the initial cost of repairs (i.e. the £6,500) as they didn’t fix the problem, which they also said they would not have agreed to had they been aware of the price from the very beginning.

The business response:

In response to the consumer’s complaint, the dealership said that they were unable to locate the original job card with details of the work and the technician’s notes. The business also said that they had informed the consumer at the beginning that it would be a staged repair, and were unable to quote a price for the work when diagnosing a fault was not possible.

The dealership said they followed the manufacturer’s diagnostics process, which can result in the initial replacement of components. The business also explained to the consumer that, from the outset, they would take the most cost-effective approach, which they agreed with, and the dealership said that they had not charged for any repairs that had not been pre-authorised.

The business also said they carried out more than 10 hours of investigation work on the car for which they had not charged. They also applied a further discount to the total bill to the consumer as a gesture of goodwill.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator explained that the onus was on the consumer to prove that the vehicle’s faults were the direct result of the workmanship of the business. They also indicated that it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the diagnostics had been carried out.

The adjudicator said that, it was not only the manufacturer’s guidelines, but industry practice to resolve faults that may be considered less costly in attempt to see if such repairs would be sufficient in diagnosing the cause of the issue, before embarking on larger, costlier repairs as long as these were approved by the customer beforehand.

In regards to the claim that the dealership had consistently changed the diagnosis, the adjudicator found no evidence to prove this point. The consumer was also dissatisfied that the business had invoiced for the work carried out, despite the vehicle still not functioning. On this point, the adjudicator stated that the consumer’s refusal to have any further work done on the vehicle – in this case, to replace the engine, acknowledged the consumer’s acceptance that the car was still in a state of disrepair, but did not exclude them from paying any outstanding bills.

The consumer did not agree with the decision i.e. that their complaint was not upheld, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision.

The ombudsman reviewed the complaint, and said it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before diagnostic work, and that the business had followed a logical investigative process, and attempted to resolve the issue first with less costly repairs.

The ombudsman equally added that it was not necessary to order the fuel pump before stripping the engine to determine the cause of the fault. This was revealed as a timing chain that had snapped, thereby causing damage to other components.

The ombudsman remarked that the consumer had been charged for many other parts, and had provided pictures of these in the boot of the car still unopened. These included washers, nuts, bolts, and gaskets – all standard components that would be kept in a parts department, meaning there was no need for the consumer to be billed for these.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence provided, the ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, and concluded that the initial investigation costs were reasonable and should be paid by the consumer, but the balance of the charges should be refunded.

Key learning points:

• Diagnosing faults with cars can be complex, meaning it is not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the investigation;
• Businesses should inform consumers about the repairs needed, and the possibility of additional work. It is also best practice to keep records in writing of what the consumer has been told; and
• Expensive parts should not be ordered unless the parts are strictly necessary and the consumer has been informed beforehand. They should equally not be charged for standard stock parts that are not used.