The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a 63-plate compact SUV in August 2016. In August 2021, I took the car to an independent garage for its MOT. When carrying out the test, a puncture hole was found in the sill of the passenger side door. I only use this garage and had the service carried out a few weeks before the MOT. In fact, they have serviced my car for the last five years.
My conclusion is the damage must have happened at the garage, and to resolve my complaint, I am looking for it to be repaired free of charge.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer’s vehicle came into our business for its MOT in August 2021, whereas the service the customer referenced was carried out in June 2021, which is two months between visits.
- We have spoken to the technician who carried out the test, and they noticed the hole in the passenger side sill. This was not classed as an MOT fail, but was nevertheless noted on the paperwork, and the consumer was shown the issue.
- The customer’s response was that they thought they had hit something a couple of days before, but thought nothing of it.
- Our technician therefore recommended that the consumer takes their vehicle to a bodyshop to get it repaired sooner rather than later, as water would be getting in the sill itself.
- We have looked into our records and we are not aware of any complaint from the consumer, and this is the first time we have heard from The Motor Ombudsman.
- Based on the two-month gap between the service and MOT, and the conversation held between the consumer and technician, we cannot agree with statement made that the damage must have been caused by our business due to having both the service and MOT carried out by ourselves.
- From our point of view, the customer left our garage after the MOT with repair advice as a content customer, and are not able to provide any further assistance.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides, and explained that, while it had been established there had been a fault in the form of a hole in the sill of the passenger’s side door, the burden of proof was on the consumer to demonstrate that it was more likely than not, that this condition was directly related to the workmanship of the business.
- On this point, it was noted that there was a lack of independent, documented technical evidence to support the conclusion that, either the MOT process or previous service work carried out by the business had been carried out with a lack of reasonable skill and care, which then resulted in the hole to the sill of the consumer’s vehicle.
- The adjudicator highlighted that the appearance of a fault months after a service, does not automatically mean the business failed to carry out the previous service at the standard required.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not find a breach by the business of The Motor Ombudsman’s Service and Repair Code, and therefore made the decision to not uphold the case in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- The case was case was closed following no response by either party after an allocated period of time.
