The consumer’s issue:
“I went to the dealership as there was a strange noise coming from the engine. The vehicle was booked in for warranty work, which was completed. However, the car was then cleaned without my consent. I was asked beforehand if I wanted it washed, and I subsequently replied via the booking e-mail and said that I didn’t. I had explained to the handover staff that my vehicle had been professionally detailed and ceramic coated, so it could not be cleaned using the normal method.
The service advisor told me that their valeting techniques would not be suitable if that were the case, as it could strip the protective coating. Nevertheless, when I collected my car, the vehicle had indeed been washed and was now covered in swirl marks which the previous detailing had undertaken to remove. As a result, the ceramic coating had been stripped, and no longer offered protection. The alloys were also marked, and the rear spoiler that was previously fitted correctly, was now protruding.”
The accredited business’ response:
- All cars receive a complementary wash and vacuum on every visit. We do not believe our “technique” damages cars and so would not advise customers that this is the case.
- We employ third party professional valeters to clean over 55 vehicles per day, and they use a non-scratch machine to do this.
- We have also supplied a statement from the valet company:
- “In terms of his particular complaints, the consumer would not accept any answers or indeed offers of rectification. Whilst we dispute that we caused his issues, we cleaned a spoke on his wheel to show that they just need cleaning and are not damaged. There was also moss under the spoiler where it has lifted which would suggest that the spoiler was raised before the wash. Swirl marks are minor scratches on the surface of the body. If the car has a ceramic coating, these should be protected and sealed in. We would not expect such an expensive treatment to fault so quickly in one professional wash, and with such consequences. Therefore, we would question the quality and the products’ warranty.”
- We have offered to clean the wheels, mop and polish the customer’s car and apply a protective treatment. He declined and wanted a refund for the sum of £750 which he paid for the other work.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that in cases where damage is alleged to have been caused to a vehicle, the suited remedy is not for a refund for other work that was previously completed.
- In review of the claim, it was considered more likely than not that the wash removed the protective coatings and allowed the marks the detailing was masking to become apparent, meaning that the business should rectify the issue.
- If it was not noted on any handover document that the spoiler was already in a state of disrepair, it was more likely to have been caused in some way during the care of the business.
Conclusion:
- Based on the evidence provided, the adjudicator ruled in the consumer’s favour and awarded a refit and repair of his spoiler, a polish to reduce swirl visibility, the application of a protective treatment to the bodywork and the cleaning of the alloys to return the vehicle to its original state. Both parties agreed to this outcome and the case was closed.
