The consumer’s issue:
A consumer took their two-year-old SUV to a dealership for a security software update as part of a recall, and notified the business at the same time about an engine management warning light on the dashboard. The vehicle owner also let the business know that they needed the car back for a trip to Italy in 12 days’ time.
The work was completed, and the car was returned to the consumer with no documentation provided about what had been undertaken. Despite being informed that all issues had been rectified, the warning light reappeared during the consumer’s vacation. Upon contacting the vehicle manufacturer whilst in Italy, they organised for the car to be taken for an inspection and repair at a franchise dealership nearby.
However, as the customer needed to return home to the UK, they didn’t have enough time to complete the repair, and the consumer had to pay a taxi fare of €170 to travel to the dealership to collect their SUV. On the journey back, the manufacturer contacted them to let them know that there was no update on the rectification of the fault.
As a resolution to their complaint, and as the issue had still not been fixed, the consumer was looking to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred, compensation for a disrupted trip, and a free-of-charge repair to their vehicle – a claim worth £1,000.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, and noted that the consumer had only authorised the work in connection with the recall, but there was nothing to suggest that they had also asked for an investigation into the cause of the warning light. As such, the business was not responsible for diagnosing or resolving those issues at that time.
On the point that no documentation was provided about the work that was carried out in relation to the recall, this was considered a breach of the Service and Repair Code as this had not been supplied. The consumer was only provided with an invoice, meaning this element of the complaint was upheld.
Although faults later developed whilst the consumer was on vacation, there was no evidence linking these to the recall work. The available information did not show that the recalls had been carried out incorrectly or without reasonable care and skill, and this element of the dispute was not upheld.
Further repairs were then subsequently completed under warranty, and there was no evidence of poor workmanship or financial loss arising from these.
The adjudicator also highlighted in the outcome that The Motor Ombudsman is unable to award compensation for non-demonstrable losses caused by the business.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, and in light of the evidence presented, the dispute was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no further awards were made beyond the agreed repairs. The case was then closed.
