The consumer’s issue:
“I took my high-performance 12-plate saloon to a dealership to be repaired, and I was informed that the sump plug had failed due to external damage to this component. However, whilst talking to one of the technicians, I was told that the damage was more likely to have been caused by over-torquing and poor workmanship from a previous service.
I sought independent advice on the matter, and escalated it through the manufacturer’s complaints process, and was told that the dealership had now agreed that the sump plug failure was not caused by external factors, thereby contradicting their initial diagnosis on the repair authorisation call.
I should therefore not be liable for the cost of a repair, when I had consented to it under false pretences. If the damaged sump plug was not due to external influences, then the part was faulty, and the repair cost should be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer asked us to perform an engine oil service and some additional work.
- We informed the customer of an oil leak, and they asked us to investigate it.
- The sump was removed, and the threads in the sump were found to be damaged, whilst the metal filings were also exposed.
- It was clear the sump plug had been overtightened by whoever had previously installed it (not our business), therefore causing the corresponding threads in the sump pan to strip.
- The only course of action was to replace the damaged sump pan.
- There was also impact damage to front of the sump pan, but this had no bearing on the damaged threads or oil leak. We apologise if it appears we advised the issues were connected and provided misleading information to the customer.
- However, as the damage was a result of overtightening and not a manufacturing defect, it would not have been covered under the warranty.
- We have rectified the issue on the customer’s car, but we are not responsible for causing it.
- We advise that the consumer raises the issue with their previous repairer.
The adjudication outcome:
- As the consumer had been misinformed by the dealership, the customer’s complaint was upheld by the adjudicator.
- However, it should be noted that whilst the complaint is upheld, there would need to be proof that the consumer suffered financial loss as a result of this repair. Between both parties, there was a consensus that the damage to the sump plug was a result of poor workmanship completed during the vehicle’s previous service or repair.
- Factoring in the point that the sump had to be replaced in its entirety, along with the fact that the over-torquing was a fault evidently caused by a third party, there was no obligation on the dealership to cover the costs of this repair as they had not caused the issue.
- As such, whilst the reasoning behind the fault was false, the consumer was still liable for paying for the repair, as this was not a fault caused by the dealership. Therefore, the customer was not entitled to any financial award from the business.
- As a result, it was recommended that the dealership apologised for the misleading information provided to the consumer.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
