The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a new ’17-plate hatchback from a dealership on 19th June 2017. At the same time, I bought a servicing package, which entitled me to a service each year for three years, or up to when the until the vehicle had travelled 36,000 miles, whichever came sooner.
In July 2019, the on-board computer indicated the need for an oil change. I therefore took the car to an independent garage to have this done. In June 2020, when the car was three years of age, I took it back to the selling dealership, but my claim to complete the service under the package was declined, as the business said that the package had not been registered.
I spoke to the vehicle manufacturer, and they said that, when the service indicator light comes on, the car needs to be taken to a business covered by the package. The independent garage had reset the service indicators in July 2019, which is why a service was not showing as being due on 30th June 2020.
I am unhappy my claim was declined. I paid for the package in good faith, but the business is not honouring it, so the cover is not fit for purpose. I am looking for a refund of £200 as a resolution to my complaint due to the third service I paid for not being fulfilled.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We dispute this complaint, as the customer had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the servicing package.
- Not only did the consumer have the vehicle serviced at a third-party garage, but that business also failed to input the correct information about the service schedule on to the computer. Both these actions contravened the terms and conditions of the cover.
- Unfortunately, in the circumstances, we are not able to offer a refund for the cost of the service in 2019 or carry out the third service under the terms of the package.
The adjudication outcome:
- Due to the nature of the complaint, the consumer had the evidential burden of supporting the fact that the selling dealership failed to approve a valid claim.
- The adjudicator stated that the consumer had not alleged that they were not provided with the terms and conditions of the package, so they accepted that that these had been supplied.
- In fact, the business was obliged to provide the customer with information and the documents relating to the package, and once these had been delivered, they had fulfilled this requirement.
- The adjudicator reviewed the terms and conditions of the policy, which clearly stated all services should be carried out within the manufacturer’s approved workshops by approved technicians, and the vehicle’s on-board computer would indicate when the next service was due.
- Due to these conditions being contravened, the adjudicator could not find that the dealership had acted in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code when they declined to offer a refund for the 2019 service or carry out the 2020 service under the package.
- Therefore, the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- The consumer and business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.
