The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a 12-plate saloon in May 2023, and a couple of months later, they took the 11-year-old vehicle to a dealership for its annual service. During the work, the business diagnosed that the emissions light had come on due to faulty fuel injectors. With the customer’s consent, the business replaced all four injectors, the oil, and the oil filter.
After the work had been completed, the consumer collected their car, and found it to be in poor condition. The windscreen was splattered with bird droppings and the engine bay was covered in oil. In addition, despite the injector replacement, the issue in relation to the emissions light remained unresolved.
In response to the consumer’s complaint, the business offered for the car to be cleaned. However, the vehicle owner believed that the business had misdiagnosed the faults, and had ultimately authorised repairs that they considered unnecessary. The consumer was therefore seeking a full refund for the works totalling £2,150.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, and noted that vehicles are complex, and in some instances, a fault can be caused by many failing components. He explained that replacing one part may highlight further issues that were not originally identifiable.
It was evident that several diagnostic codes were found within the vehicle stating “fuel-air mixture too rich”, which could be associated with a number of issues, but following the manufacturer’s diagnostic process, this concluded the injectors needed to be replaced.
However, after changing the injectors, the business identified further issues with the engine, namely the bore linings were scored, resulting in further engine damage. The damaged injectors would likely have had a direct impact on the state of the engine bores, thus reaffirming the injectors were initially at fault.
However, in order to have identified the damage to the bores, the consumer would have needed to agree to further investigations relating to the engine. The business was originally not authorised to do this, so was unable to notice this upon the consumer’s first visit.
The consumer had provided no refuting evidence that demonstrated the injectors were not damaged or the cause of the engine failure. This aspect of the complaint was therefore not upheld.
The adjudicator then turned to the cleanliness of the vehicle. He stated that, while the engine bay may have been covered in oil, the consumer did not authorise the business to clean this pre-existing mess. Engine bay clean-up is a specialised task and, if the consumer wanted this, they would have needed to agree to this along with any additional costs. The evidence showed that no consent had been given for such a service.
However, the business did have an obligation to treat the vehicle with respect and care. If bird droppings were not present prior to their possession, they should have cleaned the mess before returning the vehicle to the consumer. As a result, the adjudicator recommended that business should clean the vehicle’s windscreen of any bird droppings at no cost, and upheld this element of the consumer’s complaint.
