Fuel injector damage

The consumer’s issue:

I purchased a luxury SUV in November 2015, and the car was running perfectly with the exception of a rattle coming from the timing chain. I took my vehicle to a dealership for a recall repair regarding the driveshaft in April 2021, but the noise was not picked up during the visual health check.

I subsequently booked the car in on 4th May 2021 to investigate the issue. As the timing chain is a non-serviceable part, and should last the lifespan of the engine, I approached the vehicle manufacturer for a contribution, as they stated the engine required removing to determine the nature of the issue, and a verbal quote of £2,000 was provided.

A report was allegedly submitted to the manufacturer, but they would not contribute to the replacement of the parts required, such as the timing chain, tensioners and guides (at a cost of £1,670). I was also quoted £500 for removing the injectors, and that six new injectors were required at a cost of £3,000, meaning a total quote of around £7,500.

The original injectors however, were reinstated, as I did not agree they needed replacing, as the car ran perfectly prior to the works commencing. I was advised to explore alternative means of funding the new injectors, perhaps through our car insurance.

The car was returned to me in “limp home mode”, with a strong smell of oil, the bulkhead scuttle broken off, headlamp washers not operational, the rear battery bulkhead loose in the boot, and personal effects strewn in the boot, with no post-completion check, a clean or a handover. The car was therefore collected again, and two further injectors were replaced  at a shared cost of £500. However, the warning light was still on, and the manufacturer now states that there could be an issue with the turbo.

I have spent nearly £5,000 on the repairs to date, and I now have a car with inherent faults which were not apparent prior to the vehicle being taken into the dealership’s care. I am  substantially worse off financially than had we taken it to an independent garage, and have had to suffer terrible customer service.

I merely wish to have the car running as it was delivered to them, and as verified by the health check, I was charged to determine its condition. On each occasion the vehicle has been returned, the intent would appear to add further expense to us rather than addressing or correcting the initial works. I now have a car which is an MOT failure and does not run as efficiently or smoothly as it did before. I am not prepared to fund any further repairs, and I expect the dealership to rectify the faults at no further cost to myself, as I believe they are a direct result of their workmanship.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The visual health check carried out in April 2021 was a free of charge (duty of care) visual inspection. It did not include any interrogation of fault codes, and was not anything more than a visual check for safety-related items. Visibility in the engine bay is limited due to engine covers, and our checks in this area are therefore restricted to what can be seen with these covers left in place.
  • The consumer approached the manufacturer to see if they would be willing to contribute to the cost of replacing the timing chain, as they believed they should not have to pay for a non-serviceable part.
  • To enable us to comply with manufacturer requirements for a goodwill request, we were obliged to formally diagnose the cause of the noise. To do so, required significant works to allow a visual inspection of the timing chain and associated components. The cost of doing this was quoted and accepted by the consumer. Unfortunately, the manufacturer refused to contribute to the cost of the repair once we were able to confirm what was required.
  • Following the declined goodwill request, we provided a quote to replace the components that we believed were the cause of the noise originally being complained about. In hindsight, and in recognition of the age and mileage of the vehicle, we ought to have warned the consumer that other parts or works may have been required due to the potential for seized or aged components, but this was not made clear at this point.
  • During the work to replace the timing chain, it was necessary to remove the injectors. Through conventional means, it was only possible to remove four of the six injectors in our workshop. Therefore, the consumer agreed to pay the cost of employing a specialist to remove the seized injectors.
  • The consumer insisted that there were no running issues with the injectors prior to the work commencing, but seems not to be aware that the removal of the injectors (necessary for the timing chain repair) may have caused an issue due to them being seized in the cylinder head.
  • Following the completion of the works, the car was returned to the consumer, but as they raised a number of quality issues relating to the way that the car was put back together, as well as a smell of oil, a video call was held to try and understand exactly what the issues were.
  • After further tests, we found that the lack of power that the car had was improved, but after a short distance, a check control warning came on which we later found to be due to “charge pressure”. We checked fault codes, but none were present, and so we had nothing to go on.
  • Therefore, we set about inspecting all of the components that could potential cause a “charge pressure” fault. This entailed many hours of work, which included the replacement of significant components as well as a full de-coke. All of the costs associated with this work were absorbed by us, and in total, we wrote off over £2,000.
  • Having had three of our most experienced technicians working on this car, and having had input from the manufacturer’s technical department, we are convinced that the current fault experienced by the customer is not the result of poor workmanship.
  • We do accept that the fault seems to have been introduced as a result of the work being carried out, and having provided a significant amount of goodwill and support to the customer, we feel that our request to contribute towards further work is reasonable.

The adjudication outcome:

  •  The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator remarked that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the issues suffered with their vehicle were directly related to the workmanship of the business.
  • It was noted that the dealership had accepted that, in its initial replacement of the timing chain, the service was not completed with reasonable care and skill.
  • The business had advised that it was exceedingly likely that, due to the nature of a timing chain replacement, damage would be caused to the injectors, particularly to two of the injectors which could not be removed without great force.
  • There was however, no evidence to suggest that the business did not remove the injectors with ‘reasonable care and skill’ and indeed, the business advised the consumer of the risk of damage to the injectors prior to removing them.
  • Consequently, whilst the adjudicator was satisfied that the business did cause further damage to the injectors, they did not consider this to be sufficient to support that this damage would not have also been caused by an alternate reasonable professional in the same situation. Therefore, the dealership could not be held liable for damage to the injectors that the consumer elected to have re-fitted to the vehicle. However, the business remained liable for any issues relating to the quality of the injectors fitted and the associated workmanship.
  • The adjudicator also drew attention to the fact that the vehicle had covered circa 115,000 miles, and was nearing the end of its lifespan (as noted by the fact that the timing chain required replacement).
    • The business provided a comprehensive breakdown of the repairs and diagnostics undertaken on the vehicle. Based upon these diagnostics, the business concluded that the persisting fault with loss of power in the vehicle was not connected with the workmanship of the timing chain repair.
    • Whilst the adjudicator accepted that the consumer did initially return the vehicle to the business with only an issue with the timing chain, it was apparent that a vehicle of such age would likely experience an increase in faults with components reaching the end of their lifespan.
    • The last remaining issue was with the business’ diagnostics. The business had completed comprehensive diagnostics and come to the conclusion that the last remaining potential cause of the loss of power was the turbo.
    • Nevertheless, the consumer had not provided any substantive evidence to support that the loss of power had been caused by another factor, and as the turbo had not been diagnosed or replaced, the adjudicator was unable to ascertain if the business’ diagnostics were correct in this respect.
    • In conclusion, whilst the adjudicator did accept that the business failed to complete the timing belt replacement with ‘reasonable care and skill’, there was insufficient evidence to support that any of the further works and/or diagnostics were not completed with ‘reasonable care and skill’.
    • However, as there had been a breach of the Service and Repair Code, the adjudicator partially upheld the consumer’s complaint on this point.
    • The adjudicator noted that the business had made an earlier offer of goodwill to supply replacement parts at a zero profit margin until the fault was found. As such, the adjudicator upheld the business’ offer in this respect.
    • As the adjudicator was not able to get the business and consumer to agree to their findings, the case was passed to an ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman agreed with the conclusions made by the adjudicator that, when faulty components are repaired within a vehicle of a certain age, this can add further stress to other parts that can lead to further failures. The dealership should have made the consumer aware of this before any diagnosis or repairs were carried out on the vehicle.
  • Without knowing what the ongoing faults are to the vehicle, and acknowledging age and mileage, the ombudsman did not think the dealership was responsible for the existing faults the consumer said were present on the vehicle.
  • The business believed the issue was with the turbo and needed to remove this to inspect this component to find out what was causing the problem. However, the cost of this would likely outweigh the cost of the vehicle.
  • Also, despite what the consumer said, the vehicle had recently passed its MOT and so the ombudsman could not agree that the business left the vehicle in an unroadworthy condition. As there was a lack of evidence to determine what the current fault with the vehicle was, the ombudsman could not say the business was responsible for this.
  • Nevertheless, taking everything into consideration, the ombudsman was satisfied the dealership had breached several areas of the Service and Repair Code, namely they should have done more to warn the consumer that due to the age and mileage covered, fixing the timing chain could lead to further problems, that the business agreed they returned the vehicle in an unsatisfactory condition, and as the injector fitted and supplied by the business needed replacing 10 weeks later, then the part they repaired was not completed to a satisfactory standard and they should reimburse the consumer for the costs incurred as a result.
  • It was also found that the rocker gasket was not fitted correctly but, as this had already been repaired by the business at no cost to the customer, nothing more needed to be done to remedy this problem.
  • Based on these findings, the ombudsman upheld the consumer’s complaint, as several areas of the Service and Repair Code had been breached and advised the dealership to make an award of £482.40 for the costs to diagnose and replace the faulty injector they previously fitted into cylinder one.
  • Both the business and customer in this case accepted the ombudsman’s findings and so this complaint was resolved between both parties.