The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 15-plate luxury crossover in March 2016, and a message came up on the dashboard advising me that my car was due for a service in March 2021. I therefore had the vehicle booked it in at a franchise dealership, but on the way home, five warning lights illuminated, and suddenly, the auto brake came on and my car stopped moving.
I therefore called the dealer, and the breakdown service as per their advice. The rescue company found various faults with the car, and so I took it back to the service centre. They looked at the vehicle, and found that the vehicle needed a new battery, which was changed based on their recommendation. However, nothing improved and I was asked to leave my car with the business for just a couple of days, but I ended up having no use of my vehicle for around a month. This made my life quite difficult as there are limited transport links in the area that I live.
The dealership finally contacted me and said that there could be quite substantial costs involved in the repairs. I pointed out that none of these issues were present when I had taken the car in for the service. On the day of collection, I was asked to pay the sum of £3,155 as a condition of releasing the car. As this was a considerable amount, I was offered a nine-month interest-free loan, but after I made the first payment of £788, I was then told the car was not ready to be taken away, and that I would be provided with a replacement vehicle.
I therefore felt tricked by the business into paying the money, and expected a much better service from a globally-renowned brand. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for £5,000 in compensation to cover the cost of the repairs and for the inconvenience caused in this situation.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We were sorry to hear that the customer was not pleased with the service they received. We always try and meet our customers’ expectations and hold ourselves to high standards.
- The customer had brought their vehicle to us on 15th of March 2021 for a service and to investigate the issue with the stop-start function. At this point, the car had already travelled nearly 46,000 miles and was about six years old.
- When the car was with us, we ran diagnostics, and found that the battery voltage was low, and advised the customer that the battery needed replacing. However, at this point, the customer did not authorise the work, and took the vehicle away.
- On 25th of March 2021, the customer brought the vehicle back because warning lights had illuminated on the dashboard. We reiterated our original diagnosis and recommended that the battery was replaced, but the consumer rejected this advice, and instead opted to try an overnight charge on his car.
- Another week passed, and the battery was then eventually changed at a cost of £400 to the customer. However, once the battery was replaced, it was only then that further issues could be identified with the car, leading to further repairs being carried out.
- We were also under no obligation to provide a courtesy car, but the customer was supplied with a replacement vehicle for at least part of the time the vehicle was off the road.
- We do not feel that we are responsible for the warning lights and subsequent issues that have since emerged on the vehicle. We gave our advice based on the diagnostic process we had followed, and the consumer has not submitted any evidence to show that we had not carried out any repairs or diagnoses without reasonable skill and care.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the burden of proof was on the customer to show that the accredited business had failed to use reasonable skill and care when carrying out work on the vehicle.
- The adjudicator noted that the primary basis for the complaint raised by the customer was that they were not experiencing any issues with their vehicle prior to having the service or work carried out by the dealership.
- Although this is a factor that could be taken into consideration as circumstantial evidence with regards to whether work was completed with reasonable skill and care, this argument alone was not enough to show that it had caused the issues with the car.
- It was also explained that, by its nature, vehicle diagnostics are not an exact science, and that if there are issues experienced within the vehicle, then the business would need to test the components relevant to the issues described.
- The adjudicator also noted that, if a component failure led to the problems highlighted, then repair works should be conducted on the faulty component to see if it resolves them.
- Also, it was explained that if no solution is found to the issues, this did not imply that the work was not conducted with reasonable skill and care.
- In addition to this, it was noted that issues may not present themselves until other work on a car has been performed.
- Overall, the adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence submitted to show that the dealership has failed to use reasonable skill and care when carrying out the service and battery replacement on the vehicle.
- As a result, the complaint was not upheld in the customer’s favour, and the complaint was closed.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the proposed outcome, and the complaint was closed.
