The consumer’s issue:
The consumer booked their coupé in for a routine annual service at a dealership. However, when the vehicle was returned, the owner noticed that there were new scratches on the bonnet, and they also noticed that it was loose on one end. They therefore alerted the business about this, and suggested that the damage had been caused intentionally.
As a result of what had happened, the consumer stated that they did not want the dealership to repair the vehicle, and instead, requested a like-for-like replacement car as a fair resolution to their complaint. In response, the business stated that it did not believe it had caused the damage, and suggested that it may have been there for some time, but had not been previously noticed by the consumer.
The case outcome:
Based on the evidence provided, the adjudicator concluded that the scratches most likely occurred whilst in the care of the business. This is because they seemed too clean and fresh to have been there for an extended period, plus the customer noticed the issues immediately upon collection. In terms of the faulty bonnet, there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that this was caused by the dealership.
Due to the consumer not accepting the adjudication outcome, which was partially upheld in their favour, the case was referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. The ombudsman noted that no evidence had been provided to suggest that the damage to the car had not occurred whilst in the care of the business, nor had the dealership documented the condition of the vehicle at the point it was handed over by the consumer before the service.
On this basis, the ombudsman upheld the consumer’s complaint, but stated that it would not be reasonable for the business to be expected to provide a like-for-like replacement vehicle. In this instance, the consumer had since sold the vehicle, and had not indicated that it had sold for a lower price because of the scratches that were present.
Instead, the ombudsman stated that a repair of the vehicle would be more proportionate to the course of events, and that the only loss that could be awarded in the circumstances was a refund of the cost of servicing the vehicle at the business, to the value of £250.
Both parties accepted the decision, and the monies were provided to the consumer as per the ombudsman’s recommendations.
