The consumer’s issue:
“The dealership has always carried out all services and repair work for me, so I took my five-year-old 62-plate hatchback to the business for its annual MOT, but the car failed on this occasion. I am however, unhappy with the fact that they didn’t notice and alert me about corrosion on the vehicle last year, which has now deteriorated to an excessive degree, and has meant an expensive outlay to repair the fault (£1,749).
In addition, they have refused to allow me to take the vehicle to another more affordable dealership to get the work done. As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the business to provide me with a complimentary service and a partial refund for the cost of the repair so that I am not left out of pocket.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We carried out the MOT in July 2021, and the vehicle unfortunately failed because the seat belt anchorage was likely to become detached in the event of a collision. We advised the consumer not to drive the vehicle until the fault was repaired.
- We did not notice the corrosion the year before because an MOT test is only a visual inspection, and unfortunately, when looking at the underside of the vehicle the corrosion was obscured by the fuel tank, and from above, the corrosion was under the rear seats.
- The MOT tester found the corrosion when they were testing the rear seat belts for fixing and security.
- When tugging on the belts, there was flexing on the panel securing the seat belt stalks, which led to a further investigation of the panel under the rear seats.
- This revealed excessive corrosion under the rear seats within the prescribed area of the seat belt stalk mounting points.
- We quoted £1,749.60 to repair the vehicle and the consumer authorised this.
- The pictures show that some sort of acid solution had eaten away at the metal. If this is the case, the corrosion could have happened in less than a year.
- Unfortunately, we are not prepared to offer any compensation to the customer on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the business had failed to apply reasonable skill and care whilst carrying out the previous service and MOT work.
- Considering vehicles develop faults due to a wide range of reasons, it was not sufficient for the consumer to state that, simply because the business had worked on the vehicle, any issue with it or with a specific component thereafter was related to their quality of work. The onus was on the consumer to provide evidence that there had been a breach of the Service and Repair Code.
- As part of their review, the adjudicator researched whether the MOT and service work required a business to check under seats, the area underneath the spare wheel, or inside the door panels. These were the areas which experienced the corrosion.
- The adjudicator could not agree that, whilst carrying out the service or MOT test, the business was obliged to assess these affected areas.
- As a result, the adjudicator could not agree the business had failed in their obligation to assess the areas, whilst also concluding that the dealership would not have been able to see the onset of the corrosion, which was the subject of the dispute.
- The consumer had explained that the repair cost was too expensive for the work being carried out, but the adjudicator stated that The Motor Ombudsman was unable to intervene with a commercial decision a business makes in regards to its pricing structure. Therefore, the adjudicator could not find the business breached the Service and Repair Code in terms of this aspect of the complaint.
- Within the file submission to The Motor Ombudsman, the business acknowledged that they could not let the consumer drive the vehicle as it was deemed to be a safety concern.
- The adjudicator reminded the dealership that, whilst they may have deemed the car to not be safe on the road, they should not have led the consumer to believe there was no alternative or stopped them from taking the vehicle away.
- The adjudicator determined the business had a duty of care to go through the options available to the consumer. As experts, they were better placed to offer some additional advice and guidance. For example, they could have advised the consumer to source a more affordable dealership, and the vehicle could then have been recovered to the other dealership’s site (at the consumer’s cost).
- The adjudicator did not find it fair or reasonable that the consumer was left with no option but to proceed with the expensive repair.
- They therefore concluded that the business had failed to apply reasonable care, thereby breaching The Motor Ombudsman’s Service and Repair Code.
- As a result, the dispute was partially upheld in favour of the consumer, and the business was asked to issue a formal letter of apology in recognition of the breach, as well as a refund of 50% of the repair cost (i.e. the sum of £874.50).
Conclusion
- Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome. The business issued the consumer with a formal letter of apology and a refund of £874.50 as directed. The case was then closed.
