The consumer’s issue:
“In February 2018, I paid £743 for a three-year service plan with the dealership, which is administered by a third party. The warranty provider paid out £251.88 for the last service in 2019, but the dealer could not explain why it cost this much for the work completed. They also could not confirm the difference in price of the parts used versus the market value recommended by the manufacturer.
According to the invoice, only one tyre and the number plate were replaced without my consent, and the dealership claimed that I had negotiated prices for these and that they would not appear on the invoice.
Finally, my research showed that all parts used should be genuine, but it was never made clear to me that the clutch was an aftermarket component. Therefore, I deem the business to have overcharged me for work that wasn’t agreed beforehand, and I am looking for a full refund of £251 that I paid for the service.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The service plan was explained to the consumer before they purchased it. They were informed that each service is carried out according to the manufacturer’s schedule and that only genuine parts are fitted. Each service in the plan also has the same cost to avoid any shortage of funds and requests for top ups when a service is due.
- In September 2020, when the final service of the plan was carried out, we had no record of the consumer addressing any concerns with the agreement, and they also did not query anything since the start of the plan. It may have been possible that a complaint was lodged with the administrator, but we were not informed about this.
- The prices we quoted were for parts at the manufacturer’s RRP and labour. The prices the consumer mentioned were for parts only, which is why it appeared cheaper to them.
- As for the clutch, the consumer was fully aware it would be an aftermarket product. They were given the option of an OEM or aftermarket clutch and they chose the aftermarket option as it was cheaper.
- There was a negotiation over the price of work. We told the consumer that, when this happens, there would be no breakdown on labour or parts on the invoice, as there is just one cost for the complete job. This was explained to the customer when they queried it at the time.
- The work authorised by the consumer was quoted at £1,333, but the final invoice actually came to £1,283, a saving of £50.
- We are not sure what the value of the consumer’s claim of £250 relates to, other than it is approximately the price of one of the services within the plan.
- As we believe we have addressed all of the customer’s concerns, we will not be providing a refund of this amount.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator remarked that the consumer had provided no evidence to show that the work completed by the business was not authorised by them.
- The recorded phone call between the business and consumer indicated the vehicle owner would need the front number plate replaced to pass an MOT, which they agreed to and authorised. The business also provided a cost comparison between the OEM and aftermarket clutch for which the consumer chose an aftermarket part.
- The phone call also showed the consumer made an enquiry regarding the cost between completed repairs both with and without the clutch replacement. There was no indication they negotiated the price of the parts or the labour, and that the invoice needed to reflect these individual unit prices.
- The invoice showed only one tyre was replaced, but the business assured the consumer that two were changed, so this was an error on the paperwork.
- The adjudicator accepted the fact that the invoice was not clear with respect to the information provided to the consumer upon billing.
- However, the consumer provided no evidence indicating that two tyres were not replaced as requested, so it was assumed that, despite the error, the work was actually completed with reasonable skill and care.
- As a result, whilst this element of the consumer’s complaint was upheld, they were not entitled to any financial award as there was no evident loss.
- The adjudicator advised the business to apologise to the consumer for the fact the invoice provided did not clearly illustrate the costs of the replaced components.
Conclusion:
- The business apologised, and the consumer was displeased, but provided no evidence to challenge the outcome, thereby closing the case.
