The consumer’s issue:
“I took my 13-year-old city car, with 90,000 miles on the clock, to the garage, as I was experiencing a stiff clutch. The business completed repairs to the clutch and exhaust, but following the work, my vehicle started to judder, and the clutch cable was very tight. I therefore went back to the garage for my car to be looked at, but they couldn’t find anything wrong.
Following this, the car broke down several times, so I took it to a more local garage where, unlike the previous business, they found that the thrust bearing had been incorrectly fitted, which was completed as part of the previous clutch repair. I had to pay £192 for this work to be done, and to resolve my complaint, I am looking for the first garage to refund me this amount, and to cover the cost of the repairs that were not carried out correctly.”
The accredited business’ response:
- After reviewing the claim, we confirmed that the customer came to our garage to have repairs carried out to their vehicle’s clutch and exhaust.
- When the consumer returned with their car following the repairs, after reporting a juddering issue, we were unable to locate a fault, meaning no further work was undertaken.
- As another garage found the thrust bearing was not fitted correctly, we offered to refund the sum of £192, which the consumer had paid for repairs, plus £75 worth of vouchers to use at our business.
- However, we will not be offering a refund against our own invoice, as we do not believe the consumer is entitled to a free-of-charge repair.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator highlighted that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the issues encountered with their vehicle, were directly related to the workmanship of first garage, considering that cars develop faults due to a wide range of reasons.
- After reviewing the evidence provided, it was clear that the business had failed to fit the thrust bearings evenly, thereby resulting in increased stiffness, as well as slippage.
- As the business had acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the repair carried out, there was no dispute that the business had failed to exercise reasonable skill and care during the clutch replacement.
- The adjudicator also pointed out that the consumer was not entitled to have all the work carried out on the vehicle at no cost, because the vehicle required a clutch replacement regardless of whether they had taken their car to this garage or another one.
- He noted that, if the consumer had received a full refund for the work completed by both garages, this would have put them in a position of betterment.
- The adjudicator deemed the offer of the refund of £192 plus the vouchers as a goodwill gesture, reasonable in the circumstances, but said that the consumer would still have to pay for the initial repairs.
- The complaint was therefore upheld in the consumer’s favour.
The response to the adjudication outcome:
- The vehicle owner disagreed with this outcome, as the consumer did not feel that the business should make a profit from the work carried out.
- They also explained that they had to pay for the welding of the bulkhead damage caused by the incorrectly fitted clutch cable, and were without a car for many weeks whilst it was in the care of the garage.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the complaint, and focused on the evidence and timeline of events to conclude what had happened.
- It was agreed between both parties that the initial garage had failed to complete the repairs using reasonable care and skill, which meant that the consumer incurred a further £192 to have the work done correctly.
- The ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator in their outcome in that the consumer would have had to pay for a clutch replacement in the first instance, so would not be entitled to any refund for this repair.
- The ombudsman concluded that the refund of £192, in addition to the vouchers, was a fair resolution to the consumer’s complaint, and partially upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not respond to the final decision in the allotted time, and the case was closed.
