The consumer’s issue:
“My SUV experienced an engine failure and was running unevenly, so I took it a dealership for them to diagnose the issue. They found that all four injectors were faulty, and the fuel filter required replacing, so I authorised them to change all of these components at a cost of £1,838.
Shortly after I collected the car, the engine started failing again, and I therefore took it to my local dealership, and they diagnosed the problem as a faulty fuel pump. They believed the fault was not diagnosed properly in the previous repair, as metal particles were discovered in the fuel filter bowl and this should have been picked up when the accredited business replaced the fuel filter. Because the metal particles were not found more quickly, I was told I needed a whole new fuel system costing £4,300. Because I could not afford to do this repair, I sold the SUV below market value due to the unresolved faults.
To conclude this complaint, I am seeking a full refund of £1,838 for the initial work that was carried out by the accredited business.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer brought their vehicle to us, and we diagnosed a problem with the fuel injectors and replaced all four, as well as the fuel filter.
- The customer paid for the work and travelled home safely with no reported issues.
- We were then contacted a month later by the consumer reporting further problems, and we recommended that they took their car to their local franchise dealership.
- The consumer told us that the dealer had found an underlying fault, which is what would have caused the fuel injectors to fail, and they asked us why we had been unable to find this when diagnosing the car.
- We replaced the fuel injectors and fuel filter at the time, as this was the issue that was diagnosed, and there was no evidence to suggest that there were any other problems with the vehicle at the time.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the submissions by both parties and found no evidence of a breach of the Code of Practice for Service and Repair.
- The consumer had not provided any documentation to demonstrate that the fuel filter and injectors did not require replacement at the time of repair.
- The adjudicator acknowledged the comments the customer made regarding the local dealership, concluding the fuel pump being the probable cause, and that the metal particles in the fuel filter bowl should have been picked up. However, whilst the adjudicator did not doubt the consumer, nothing had been provided directly from the local business to support this conclusion.
- As there was no technical evidence to demonstrate that the business failed to pick up on a faulty fuel pump, which should have reasonably been diagnosed at the time of repair, it was concluded that the business used reasonable care and skill in their investigations and when conducting the work.
- For this reason, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
