The consumer’s issue:
“I initially took my car in for a service and MOT, and asked them to look at the windscreen demister knob under my warranty policy as it wasn’t working. I was told by the garage that they needed a spare part to fix it. I was not initially supplied with a courtesy car, but the business provided this to me after a week of having no vehicle. However, five months later, there was still no repair, and I was told by the manufacturer that no part was available. I am therefore seeking to have the car fixed and compensation for the inconvenience of being without my car for this period.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer contacted me advising that she was having issues demisting her windscreen and that her garage had ordered a heater box to resolve this problem, but the part was unavailable. At this point, she did not request the use of a courtesy vehicle and was happy to keep driving her car.
- We kept the consumer updated after checking on the availability of this part and the consumer advised us that she was unable to carry on using her car, as she was no longer able to demist her windscreen. We therefore arranged for the consumer to have a courtesy vehicle.
- Unfortunately, the component was not available for a significant period, but we can now confirm that the repair has been carried out, and that the vehicle has been returned to the consumer.
- We appreciate the lengthy time it took to source the part, but we have kept the customer mobile so that she wasn’t inconvenienced in using a car which did not demist properly.
- Due to the fact that the consumer was not using their own vehicle, we would like to offer to cover the cost of their next service (worth £150) as a gesture of goodwill.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint as the remedy they were seeking had been provided.
- The vehicle manufacturer’s obligations are to put right any manufacturing defects by repairing the faulty part. This was confirmed as being complete by both the business and consumer subsequent to the case being taken on by The Motor Ombudsman.
- The compensation the consumer was seeking for distress and inconvenience was not a remedy available to the consumer as it fell outside The Motor Ombudsman’s remit.
- The adjudicator was happy with the way the business kept the consumer mobile, and recommended that they uphold their gesture of goodwill to cover the cost of the next service.
Conclusion:
- The consumer and business did not appeal The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
