The consumer’s issue:

In October 2023, the consumer took their 19-plate SUV for its annual service at a dealership, and to investigate a noise coming from the left-hand side of the engine bay which had been present for around the last six months.

Upon collecting the car, the business told the consumer that the turbo had failed a vehicle health check, and that paint was also peeling on the bodywork. As the car was still under warranty, the consumer was asked to bring it back in for these issues to be looked into, and the dealership said that they would be in touch to book in an appointment.

After not hearing back for two and half weeks, the vehicle owner contacted the dealership, but the business explained they had no record of the previous conversation and had not been liaising with the warranty provider regarding making a claim.

As result, the dealership quoted £1,200 to do an investigation – a price which was later retracted after the consumer made a complaint, and the appointment was subsequently booked in for December 2023. However, a few days before this diagnostics work was due to take place, the turbo failed on a busy road, and the car had to be recovered back to the dealership. Despite a subsequent successful warranty claim, parts were not available for the repair, and a courtesy car was provided.

The consumer explained that they had already paid £1,100 for the service, and were therefore seeking a refund of this cost, as they deemed that the business let them drive away from the dealership with a vehicle in poor condition, and had not followed up with an appointment to rectify the turbo issue, leading to the failure.

As a goodwill gesture, and as the business had followed vehicle manufacturer guidelines for the service, and rectified all outstanding issues at no cost to the vehicle owner, including a steering rack rattle, they offered the sum of £150, but this was not a satisfactory amount for the consumer based on the inconvenience that had been caused.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and pointed out that it could reasonably be seen from the invoices and job cards that the service had been completed correctly, and that the turbo does not form part of a service by any garage. Therefore, there was no doubt that reasonable care and skill had been used.

On the subject of the consumer not hearing back about making a follow-up appointment, the adjudicator said that, whilst this is best practice, there was no obligation by the business to get back in contact, as this was not a paid-for service, and that the responsibility was on the owner to ensure that their car was well maintained, and that any outstanding issues are resolved. Nevertheless, the dealership made an apology after the consumer thought the level of customer service was substandard from their perspective.

In terms of the parts delay, this was beyond the control of the dealership, and therefore the business could not be held liable for this element of the consumer’s complaint.

Conclusion:

As there was no evidence to support the consumer’s position on any of the points raised, the case was not upheld in their favour, and no further awards were made. The adjudicator pointed out that the dealership had made several gestures of goodwill beyond the amount of £150, and that there were no demonstrable financial losses incurred by the consumer based on the evidence provided.

Key learning point:

A business is entitled to be paid for any agreed work completed correctly on the vehicle. A refund will only be awarded if it is found that the work was carried out incorrectly, or that it was done without prior authorisation.