Mr J********* B********* OMBUDSMAN REPORT
We always pride ourselves in achieving high customer standards but on this occasion we received a customer complaint and a request for compensation to the sum of £500.00 due to the fact that a repair became more in depth and involved than initially thought and the repair took a total of 3 days, we was unable to satisfy the customers request for this compensation so in the customers interests he was handed the details to refer his case to the MOTOR OMBUDSMAN who would fight this on his behalf. Now due to the outcome of their findings this customer has become very disgruntled and decided to leave us unfair / untrue feedback on the GOOGLE / HONEST JOHN / YELLOW PAGES review platforms. So we have taken the very unusual steps of publicising the outcome of the OMBUDSMAN report so that genuine customers have the full story and can then make up their own mind based on all of the evidence and not just that of the customer
What are Malling Repair Services Limited’s obligations?
Malling Repair Services Limited have an obligation to carry out service and repairs with reasonable skill and care. If Malling Repair Services Limited fails to do so, then the consumer may be entitled to a free repair.
How does this apply to Mr B*******’s complaint?
The Service and Repair Code of Practice states the following:
“3.2 If during the performance of the agreed work, it becomes apparent that additional time, labour or parts will be necessary to address consequential/additional needs not previously recognised, the accredited business will contact you for authorisation prior commencement of this additional work, giving you the opportunity to accept and agree a new completion time.”
“3.10 The accredited business will carry our all work within an agreed timescale, excising reasonable skill and care you are entitled by law to expect. If the work is likely to take longer, they will contact you, as states in paragraph 3.2.”
The business has clearly explained that as a result of the their being no communication between the power steering module and the body control module, they were unable to test further components becausecommunication was impossible until this fault was fixed. Once the steering module was replaced and communication to other items was possible and as a result another fault was identified, a faulty angle sensor. This would not have been identifiable if the power steering module had not been replaced.
I would kindly like to highlight to Mr B****** that it is not unusual for further faults to be identified following repair work because components in a vehicle are interlinked. This does not mean that the original diagnosis was incorrect. I do not have any information that suggests that the original diagnosis was incorrect. Furthermore, following the work completed by the business, I have not been provided with any technical information that states that the repair work has failed because of the business’ failing to complete work with reasonable skill and care. In light of the information I have, I am unable to uphold this aspect of Mr B*******’s complaint.
Mr B******* booked his vehicle in on 22 May 2018 to replace the steering sensor. Following numerous calls, the business informed Mr B******* that the repair would be completed on 23 May 2018. On the 22 May 2018, following several phone calls from Mr B******* to the garage, Malling Repair Services informed that a software update would be required and that this should be completed by 23 May 2018. Malling Service Repair Limited acted reasonably by informing Mr B******** of the software update required on the same day that the vehicle was booked in for repair.
On 23 May 2018, Malling Service Repair Limited informed Mr B******* that the vehicle would require a further software update costing £130 would be required and that this may complete on 24 May 2018. Aspreviously explained, it is not uncommon or unusual for further work or obstacles to be identified during a repair. When this happens, the garage should inform the consumer of the extra cost and time required for the work to be completed and the consumer has the option of declining further work.
Therefore, the business acted correctly by informing Mr B****** of the extra cost and extra time required to complete the repair. Mr B****** had the opportunity to decline the work for the price quoted but did not do so. The business repaired vehicle and it was ready for collection on 24 May 2018. In light of the circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the business acted incorrectly; therefore, I am unable to uphold this aspect of Mr B*******’s complaint.
Mr B****** is unhappy that it took the garage three business days to repair the vehicle. The business did not take an unreasonable amount of time to complete such a repair, particularly having considered the unforeseeable obstacles faced and overcome during the repair.
What happens next?
For the reasons above, I am unable to uphold your complaint. It is my opinion that this outcome is fair and reasonable based on the evidence provided by both parties so far.
If you would like to submit some new information, I will happily consider this to see if it changes my mind – please let me know within the next 10 working days if you will you be looking to provide any further information.If you need more time, for example you are looking to get an independent report, I will consider an extension to allow you to provide this. If the new information changes my mind, I will propose a resolution but, if it doesn't, this will remain as my position.Both parties will then have a further 5 working days to decide whether to request a final decision from the Ombudsman, if they disagree with the outcome at that point.
The Motor Ombudsman