The consumer’s issue:
“My 18-year-old compact SUV failed its MOT because the tread depth on both of the front tyres were below the legal limits, and the rear upper suspension control arm was excessively worn. I therefore booked my vehicle into the garage for the tyres to be changed, and made it clear on the booking form that I did want any extra work done beyond this.
My partner took the vehicle into the business for the tyres to be changed, and the garage pressured them into having the alignment done at the same time. When my partner said no, as I would be doing the outstanding repairs myself following the MOT, the business became insistent, and told my partner that it would not be worth getting the new tyres without the alignment, and quoted a discounted rate of £30 to have this done. However, my partner caved in, and went ahead with the work, but on completion, the garage presented an invoice for £60, as they had not explained previously that the cost of £30 was per axle. With my partner in tears from being over-charged, the manager settled on a final cost of £50, which my partner paid before leaving the garage.
It was illogical to have the alignment completed before the other repairs were carried out, and when I changed the suspension control arm the following day, I saw that the suspension adjusters had not been touched. I have many years’ experience in the motor trade, and there were clear signs that the alignment did not occur. When I approached the garage, they admitted that the alignment had not taken place, and they gave me their complaints procedure and refunded the money my partner had paid.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for full compensation for the tyres we purchased, and for the inconvenience and stress caused to my partner.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We believe the amount of compensation requested by the customer is unjustified and unrealistic.
- A refund has been issued to the customer for the sum they paid for the alignment, in full and final settlement.
- The consumer was also given a voucher for a free MOT and wheel alignment as a goodwill gesture.
- Beyond that, we are unable to provide any further assistance.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence and representations submitted by both parties, and explained that the customer needed to demonstrate that there had been a breach of the Service and Repair Code.
- The adjudicator said that there were two points for consideration – one being the upselling of the alignment, and the other being the alignment service itself.
The upselling
- The evidence showed that there was no indication that the garage was aware that the issue with the tyres was caused by the suspension, or that this was subsequently going to be repaired by the vehicle owner.
- The adjudicator also noted that it is likely that the business may have recommended the alignment because they believed that the suspension was fine and tyres needed realigning.
- On the point of upselling, the adjudicator explained that it was likely that they pressured the customer’s partner into doing the alignment, but it was not possible to determine that aggressive sales tactics were used from the evidence provided.
- Therefore, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint on this point.
The wheel alignment
- The wheel alignment printouts shown to the customer indicated that this service had been carried out in a very quick timeframe.
- This therefore suggested that the wheels had not been aligned, despite the vehicle owner’s partner paying for this.
- The adjudicator also noted that the business had not disputed this or presented an alternative scenario.
- Based on the facts presented, this part of the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- The business agreed with the outcome, but the customer disputed it, as they wanted monetary compensation as a resolution.
- The adjudicator explained that The Motor Ombudsman does not award compensation for non-demonstrable losses. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that services rendered without reasonable skill and care had two potential awards: a repeat repair or a price reduction.
- However, the adjudicator did recommend that the business maintained their offer of goodwill.
- On receipt of this information, the consumer did not respond, and the adjudicator closed the case.
