The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 15-plate saloon with 35,600 miles on the clock from the dealership in December 2018. A year later, I took the vehicle for its routine service and asked them to investigate a whining noise. They charged me £48 for labour to diagnose a worn prop shaft bearing and quoted £1,400 for the repair, as it came as a sealed unit.
However, I found this to be far too expensive, so I bought a new prop shaft from the manufacturer for £926 and asked the local garage to fit the part, saving me £500. The part was then fitted, but the fault remained. This was because the garage then discovered the fault lay in the differential unit, and this was also replaced at a cost of £1,600.
I believe the dealership misdiagnosed the fault, which cost me £926 for a part that I did not need, and I could not return it once it had been fitted. As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to provide me with a full refund for the cost of the prop shaft (£926) so that I am not left out of pocket.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer requested an investigation into the whining noise, and we advised at the service that the centre prop shaft bearing was worn and noisy. We also informed the customer that the rear differential oil needed to be replenished.
- The consumer did not approve for us to investigate the issue any further and, as the consumer declined to authorise any further work, we were unable to run the full course of the diagnosis and repair.
- If they had accepted for us to drain the differential oil, we would have seen the debris if that was causing the fault.
- When the vehicle left our premises, the centre bearing for the prop shaft was still worn, the differential oil was still not replenished, and the noise was still apparent.
- As with any repair, there is an element of diagnosis that may identify the result of a fault, but there may be underlying issues which may only become apparent when work is carried out.
- In this instance, the vehicle was removed before we could investigate the problem any further. Therefore, we decline to accept we misdiagnosed the fault or the cause of it.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence, and accepted the dealership’s diagnostic check concluded that the prop shaft centre bearing was worn.
- They also acknowledged that the local garage found the noise originated from the rear differential and a suspected bearing failure.
- However, the adjudicator concluded there was no documentation submitted which showed that, at the time of the diagnostic check, the dealership did not use reasonable skill and care when completing the diagnostic work.
- There was also nothing to support the fact that the diagnostics carried out by the dealership was not completed to industry standards.
- Therefore, the adjudicator could not determine that a breach of the Code of Practice for Service and Repair had occurred.
- As a result, the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no further recommendations were made.
Conclusion:
- Both the dealership and the consumer agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the case was then closed.
