The consumer’s issue:
“I took my car in to the franchise dealer’s workshop for repairs after it broke down and would not start. After their investigation, I was called by the technician who told me that my vehicle needed engine repairs that would cost around £1,800. As I’d previously spent a lot of money on work at this dealership, and was short on funds, I asked for reassurance that, once I had paid for these, my issues would be resolved. They replied to say that the problems would be solved once and for all, and I therefore agreed to spend this amount. However, after they had been completed, my car still had the same issues as before. I was then told that I would need to spend a further £2,000 to get my car back on the road, but I haven’t been able to authorise this work as I don’t have any more money.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When the car was brought to us, we carried out a diagnostic check that indicated there was a fault with the fuel injectors.
- We then obtained the consumer’s permission to replace these parts.
- However, once this was work had been completed, we also found that there was an issue with the car’s exhaust.
- Whilst we accept we told the customer that the injector repairs would resolve the fault, the problem with the exhaust could not have been foreseen when the car was first brought to us. This is because it only became apparent after the original injector repairs had been undertaken.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator did not think the evidence indicated the business had failed to demonstrate reasonable care and skill in the diagnostic investigations and repairs it undertook.
- However, they also noted that, while the consumer was debating whether or not to proceed with repairs, cost was a major factor in the customer’s deliberations, and they only agreed to proceed with the replacement of the injectors following the assurance that this would return their car to the road.
- While the adjudicator did not think the further repairs costs arose as a consequence of any shortcoming in the business’ workmanship, he did think that an error had been made when it gave the consumer the assurance that the injector repairs, completed at considerable expense to the customer, would allow the vehicle owner to return to the road without any further issues.
- As a result, the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour, and they were awarded the full cost (£2,000) of the further work being recommended by the business.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted responsibility for the cost of the additional repairs, and the case was closed.
