The consumer booked their compact SUV in for its six-year service and MOT via an online repair platform, and the description said that the price included replacement brake hoses.

However, just before the service was due to take place, the consumer was contacted and was advised that there had been an error and that these components would not be part of the package, and would cost an additional £200. As the customer refused to pay this on request, the booking was cancelled, with the platform citing their terms and conditions.

The customer subsequently complained on numerous occasions, as they believed that the business had acted fraudulently, and had formed a valid contract, which they then breached.
As a resolution to their dispute, the consumer was seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience that had been caused, and damages for the missed service to their vehicle.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that, while they acknowledged that the price stated by the business was incorrect, and that the terms state that prices can be amended and bookings cancelled, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the terms were provided to the consumer at the time of booking.

The adjudicator also stated that it was reasonable for the consumer to expect that the business would honour the price of the package, inclusive of the brake hoses, at the time of booking, plus it was unreasonable to request the £200 just before the service was due to take place. Based on this, the adjudicator upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and advised that the most appropriate remedy in this case was an apology for inconvenience caused, as there was no financial loss in this case due to the consumer not having yet made any kind of payment.

However, the business disagreed with this outcome and requested a final decision. The ombudsman advised that, to form a contract for service and repair work, four elements must be present, namely an offer, acceptance of that offer, consideration provided (usually money), and an intention of both parties to create legal relations.

In relation to the servicing and repair of a vehicle, the contract is usually formed when the consumer brings the vehicle to a repairer’s premises and leaves it there with a promise to pay afterwards, in exchange for the business completing the work.

In this case, no money was exchanged before the consumer brought the vehicle on site, and the booking was cancelled prior to them even starting to travel to the business’ premises. As such, no consideration was provided, and no contract had been formed. The ombudsman concluded that the business was therefore within their rights to cancel the consumer’s booking.

However, the ombudsman noted that the business had incorrectly applied their terms, which stated that it was entitled to cancel the contact where there was an ‘obvious and unmistakable’ error of pricing. The ombudsman reviewed the terms, and found that a consumer would not reasonably have known whether brake hoses were included in a service, or would come at an additional cost of £200.

Conclusion:

As such, it was considered that there was a breach of the Service and Repair Code in relation to the accuracy of information provided at the time of booking. The ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, but did not make a financial award, as they had not formed a binding contract for the booking. The ombudsman instead recommended the business reviewed its processes and training to ensure the information they provided to consumers was as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

The post Brake hose premium appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer took their 14-plate premium estate car to a franchise dealership in mid-July 2021 due to a rubbing noise whilst driving. They investigated the problem, but kept changing their diagnosis of the fault that had occurred. Despite the car still not working, the dealership charged the consumer around £6,500 for the work that had been carried out without providing a quote before it was undertaken, and said the issue was due to a front wheel bearing that needed to be replaced.

The consumer returned to the dealership in mid-September 2021, but the car broke down on the way to the business. According to the customer, the business again mis-diagnosed the parts that had malfunctioned, and was eventually informed that the car would need a new engine at an additional cost of £13,000, which was more than the vehicle was worth.

The consumer also provided photos of new parts, such as a fuel pump, which had been left in the car, still in its original packaging, indicating components that had not been changed.

To resolve the dispute, the consumer was looking to be reimbursed for the initial cost of repairs (i.e. the £6,500) as they didn’t fix the problem, which they also said they would not have agreed to had they been aware of the price from the very beginning.

The business response:

In response to the consumer’s complaint, the dealership said that they were unable to locate the original job card with details of the work and the technician’s notes. The business also said that they had informed the consumer at the beginning that it would be a staged repair, and were unable to quote a price for the work when diagnosing a fault was not possible.

The dealership said they followed the manufacturer’s diagnostics process, which can result in the initial replacement of components. The business also explained to the consumer that, from the outset, they would take the most cost-effective approach, which they agreed with, and the dealership said that they had not charged for any repairs that had not been pre-authorised.

The business also said they carried out more than 10 hours of investigation work on the car for which they had not charged. They also applied a further discount to the total bill to the consumer as a gesture of goodwill.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator explained that the onus was on the consumer to prove that the vehicle’s faults were the direct result of the workmanship of the business. They also indicated that it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the diagnostics had been carried out.

The adjudicator said that, it was not only the manufacturer’s guidelines, but industry practice to resolve faults that may be considered less costly in attempt to see if such repairs would be sufficient in diagnosing the cause of the issue, before embarking on larger, costlier repairs as long as these were approved by the customer beforehand.

In regards to the claim that the dealership had consistently changed the diagnosis, the adjudicator found no evidence to prove this point. The consumer was also dissatisfied that the business had invoiced for the work carried out, despite the vehicle still not functioning. On this point, the adjudicator stated that the consumer’s refusal to have any further work done on the vehicle – in this case, to replace the engine, acknowledged the consumer’s acceptance that the car was still in a state of disrepair, but did not exclude them from paying any outstanding bills.

The consumer did not agree with the decision i.e. that their complaint was not upheld, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision.

The ombudsman reviewed the complaint, and said it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before diagnostic work, and that the business had followed a logical investigative process, and attempted to resolve the issue first with less costly repairs.

The ombudsman equally added that it was not necessary to order the fuel pump before stripping the engine to determine the cause of the fault. This was revealed as a timing chain that had snapped, thereby causing damage to other components.

The ombudsman remarked that the consumer had been charged for many other parts, and had provided pictures of these in the boot of the car still unopened. These included washers, nuts, bolts, and gaskets – all standard components that would be kept in a parts department, meaning there was no need for the consumer to be billed for these.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence provided, the ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, and concluded that the initial investigation costs were reasonable and should be paid by the consumer, but the balance of the charges should be refunded.

Key learning points:

• Diagnosing faults with cars can be complex, meaning it is not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the investigation;
• Businesses should inform consumers about the repairs needed, and the possibility of additional work. It is also best practice to keep records in writing of what the consumer has been told; and
• Expensive parts should not be ordered unless the parts are strictly necessary and the consumer has been informed beforehand. They should equally not be charged for standard stock parts that are not used.

The post Changing repair diagnosis appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In October 2023, the consumer took their 19-plate SUV for its annual service at a dealership, and to investigate a noise coming from the left-hand side of the engine bay which had been present for around the last six months.

Upon collecting the car, the business told the consumer that the turbo had failed a vehicle health check, and that paint was also peeling on the bodywork. As the car was still under warranty, the consumer was asked to bring it back in for these issues to be looked into, and the dealership said that they would be in touch to book in an appointment.

After not hearing back for two and half weeks, the vehicle owner contacted the dealership, but the business explained they had no record of the previous conversation and had not been liaising with the warranty provider regarding making a claim.

As result, the dealership quoted £1,200 to do an investigation – a price which was later retracted after the consumer made a complaint, and the appointment was subsequently booked in for December 2023. However, a few days before this diagnostics work was due to take place, the turbo failed on a busy road, and the car had to be recovered back to the dealership. Despite a subsequent successful warranty claim, parts were not available for the repair, and a courtesy car was provided.

The consumer explained that they had already paid £1,100 for the service, and were therefore seeking a refund of this cost, as they deemed that the business let them drive away from the dealership with a vehicle in poor condition, and had not followed up with an appointment to rectify the turbo issue, leading to the failure.

As a goodwill gesture, and as the business had followed vehicle manufacturer guidelines for the service, and rectified all outstanding issues at no cost to the vehicle owner, including a steering rack rattle, they offered the sum of £150, but this was not a satisfactory amount for the consumer based on the inconvenience that had been caused.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and pointed out that it could reasonably be seen from the invoices and job cards that the service had been completed correctly, and that the turbo does not form part of a service by any garage. Therefore, there was no doubt that reasonable care and skill had been used.

On the subject of the consumer not hearing back about making a follow-up appointment, the adjudicator said that, whilst this is best practice, there was no obligation by the business to get back in contact, as this was not a paid-for service, and that the responsibility was on the owner to ensure that their car was well maintained, and that any outstanding issues are resolved. Nevertheless, the dealership made an apology after the consumer thought the level of customer service was substandard from their perspective.

In terms of the parts delay, this was beyond the control of the dealership, and therefore the business could not be held liable for this element of the consumer’s complaint.

Conclusion:

As there was no evidence to support the consumer’s position on any of the points raised, the case was not upheld in their favour, and no further awards were made. The adjudicator pointed out that the dealership had made several gestures of goodwill beyond the amount of £150, and that there were no demonstrable financial losses incurred by the consumer based on the evidence provided.

Key learning point:

A business is entitled to be paid for any agreed work completed correctly on the vehicle. A refund will only be awarded if it is found that the work was carried out incorrectly, or that it was done without prior authorisation.

The post SUV turbo failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer bought a 12-plate hatchback from a private individual in July 2023, and a couple of months later, the car developed a problem with the oil pump. They took the car to their local dealership, where they were informed that a new oil pressure sensor was needed, and at this point a new oil pump was also ordered. The engine was dismantled to replace the components, but on returning two weeks later for the pump to be fitted, the consumer was informed there would be a five-week delay for the part to arrive.

The business also informed them that no loan car would be available whilst the car was at the dealership waiting to be repaired, and if there was, there would be a daily fee. With no contact from the garage as to the when the part would arrive, and the estimated wait time subsequently being extended until the end of November 2023, the consumer asked for the vehicle to be reassembled, so that they could have the vehicle repaired elsewhere. The dealership explained that there would be a cost for this.

Proactively getting in touch with the dealership, the part did eventually arrive as per the estimate, and the pump was fitted in mid-December. As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking for a discount of around £350, due to having to pay for the labour costs twice, because of the delay in procuring the pump.

The case outcome:

After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, the adjudicator noted that it was not disputed that the oil pump was on back order, and that the fitting of the new part was delayed by circa three months.

The adjudicator outlined that the repairing garage’s responsibility under the Service and Repair Code is to ensure that, in the event there is a delay in obtaining parts, the consumer is kept up to date with their estimated arrival.

The adjudicator concluded that due to the business not providing evidence to substantiate that the consumer was kept up to date, it was more likely than not that the consumer had not been kept appropriately informed about the delays.

The adjudicator explained that, in relation to the time taken for the oil pump to arrive, this was the responsibility of the manufacturer or parts supplier, meaning the repairer was not responsible for the delay in the supply of the pump.

In regards to the reassembly of the engine, the dealership explained that there would be a cost to reassemble the vehicle if the consumer was requesting such action. However, the adjudicator pointed out that the Service and Repair Code states that reassembly should be at no additional cost, since it is usually factored into the repair fee. In this case, the evidence showed that the consumer had not been charged an additional fee, meaning no breach of the Code had occurred. On this point, the adjudicator made a recommendation for the dealership to fully understand their responsibilities in regard to reassembly.

As a remedy to the complaint, the consumer was seeking a discount on the labour cost to fit the oil pump. However, the adjudicator was unable to make an award, due to the business not having an obligation to do this, and because no financial loss was incurred by the consumer.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts of the case, the dispute was therefore partially upheld with no remedy since the consumer was not charged a reassembly fee.

Key learning points:

A repairing garage has the responsibility to reassemble the vehicle (if it is possible to do so), if the consumer wishes to have the repairs completed elsewhere, and no charges should be made for doing so.

The post Oil pump delays appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer took their hybrid saloon to a dealership to investigate an issue with the car. The business advised the car would be at the workshop for the day, and would call the customer with an update. However, none were received, and it was left to the consumer to chase the repairer.

Three days later, the business called the vehicle owner to advise on the cost and to request authorisation for rectifying a fault with the auxiliary belt, which was going to break imminently due to its condition. As the vehicle was still within the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty period, the consumer requested the repairs were carried out at no cost to them, and the dealership agreed to raise a claim.

However, later that day, the business called back and advised the repairs would not be covered under warranty, as the failure was put down to wear and tear. The business advised the parts required for repair were on back order and would not arrive until the following week, leaving the consumer to pay for the cost of the belt. The dealership also said that a courtesy car would not be made available despite it being a term of the manufacturer’s warranty.

The parts eventually arrived six weeks after the vehicle was initially brought into the workshop. To resolve their complaint, the consumer was seeking an apology for the time taken to repair the car, and to be reimbursed for the cost of repairs and for being without their vehicle – a total claim of £1,000.

The case outcome:

The ombudsman considered consumer law, which stated that where the time to deliver a service is not expressly fixed, it must be completed within a ‘reasonable time’. This is in comparison to a hypothetical alternative garage. The ombudsman found it likely that, as the part was on back order, the delay would have been the same had the consumer gone to a different dealership.

The ombudsman noted that once the part was obtained, the repair was completed swiftly. Reviewing the dates of the diagnosis and work undertaken, the ombudsman was satisfied that the time taken to rectify the consumer’s vehicle was reasonable. As such, the ombudsman concluded there had not been any breach of contract or law.

The ombudsman then went on to consider the offer of a courtesy car. The ombudsman advised the manufacturer and the dealership were different legal entities. As such, he could not hold the dealership liable if the manufacturer failed to provide one under the manufacturer’s warranty.

In addition, the ombudsman advised there was no term of contract or law which required the dealership to provide a courtesy car to the consumer. As such, they could not be held liable for the consumer’s alleged losses of transport costs or to provide compensation for the loss of use of their own vehicle.

As there had been no breach of the law or The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair, the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.

Conclusion:

Neither party disputed the findings, and the case was closed.

The post Auxiliary belt failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer booked their coupé in for a routine annual service at a dealership. However, when the vehicle was returned, the owner noticed that there were new scratches on the bonnet, and they also noticed that it was loose on one end. They therefore alerted the business about this, and suggested that the damage had been caused intentionally.

As a result of what had happened, the consumer stated that they did not want the dealership to repair the vehicle, and instead, requested a like-for-like replacement car as a fair resolution to their complaint. In response, the business stated that it did not believe it had caused the damage, and suggested that it may have been there for some time, but had not been previously noticed by the consumer.

The case outcome:

Based on the evidence provided, the adjudicator concluded that the scratches most likely occurred whilst in the care of the business. This is because they seemed too clean and fresh to have been there for an extended period, plus the customer noticed the issues immediately upon collection. In terms of the faulty bonnet, there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that this was caused by the dealership.

Due to the consumer not accepting the adjudication outcome, which was partially upheld in their favour, the case was referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. The ombudsman noted that no evidence had been provided to suggest that the damage to the car had not occurred whilst in the care of the business, nor had the dealership documented the condition of the vehicle at the point it was handed over by the consumer before the service.

On this basis, the ombudsman upheld the consumer’s complaint, but stated that it would not be reasonable for the business to be expected to provide a like-for-like replacement vehicle. In this instance, the consumer had since sold the vehicle, and had not indicated that it had sold for a lower price because of the scratches that were present.

Instead, the ombudsman stated that a repair of the vehicle would be more proportionate to the course of events, and that the only loss that could be awarded in the circumstances was a refund of the cost of servicing the vehicle at the business, to the value of £250.

Both parties accepted the decision, and the monies were provided to the consumer as per the ombudsman’s recommendations.

The post Vehicle servicing scratches appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In April 2023, the consumer took their three-year-old 20-plate compact crossover to their local franchise dealership for its annual service. During the yearly routine assessment, the business advised there were issues with the nearside front tyre, but that it remained safe and legal to drive on. No tyre assessment documentation was provided with the servicing record at the time.

A month later, the vehicle failed its first MOT due to a severe bulge being identified in the tyre, and the consumer was advised that it could have blown out at any time. Following these findings, the vehicle owner therefore got back in touch with the dealership, and they agreed to replace the tyre at no cost as a gesture of goodwill, as the consumer’s tyre warranty had recently expired. The business was also reluctant to supply any documents on the tyre analysis for around a fortnight.

In response to what had happened, the business explained that they would do a full investigation as to why the condition of the tyre was missed, as the consumer deemed to have been put at risk by the defective tyre, and also wanted to know the way that the dealership would be addressing their products and policies to help prevent the same issue from re-occurring.

The case outcome:

When looking at the evidence supplied in relation to this case, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that part of the consumer’s complaint, specifically the remedy, was for the dealership to divulge all the information on their internal policies and procedures involving products and policies they provide to consumers.

Whilst The Motor Ombudsman was able to investigate this complaint in relation to an accredited business, the adjudicator explained that the body’s dispute resolution service is not used to secure and divulge internal policies kept by a business, or even to address how such issues are investigated by them.

As such, the adjudicator stated that their investigation would instead be focused on whether the business had used reasonable skill and care during their inspection into the tyres as part of the service. Looking at the vehicle health check, it was noted that the nearside front (NSF) tyre was marked as an advisory by the business during the service, stating the tyre side wall was damaged, but no chords were showing. This contrasted with the later MOT findings, which stated the NSF tyre had a lump caused by a failure of its structure, meaning the vehicle failed the test.

In their findings, the adjudicator highlighted that damage on a tyre can be a dangerous defect. However, should it warrant replacing, such as when advised in an MOT, the damage must be significant in the form of a bulge or exposed chords.

It also cannot be ignored that the vehicle’s MOT was carried out six weeks after the service, and the vehicle had covered an additional 600 miles during this time. It is reasonably likely within that timeframe and mileage that the vehicle may have been exposed to external factors, which may have escalated any minor damage at the time, into the major faults noted during the MOT.

As such, the adjudicator surmised that, whilst the NSF tyre was found to be unroadworthy and needed to be replaced during the MOT, it was likely, at the time of the service, to only have suffered minor damage up until this point. Any significant damage, therefore, had occurred after the service. It was concluded by the adjudicator that the business had exercised reasonable skill and care, meaning the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.

Despite the complaint, the business had already replaced the NSF tyre at no cost to the consumer as a gesture of goodwill. The adjudicator mentioned irrespective of the outcome of this dispute, the dealership’s gesture went above and beyond what would have been expected from them in these circumstances.

The post Front tyre bulge appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer took their compact SUV to the garage for its annual MOT, and the brake fluid was also changed at the same time. Shortly after the consumer left the premises, their car suffered a loss of power. The consumer managed to return to the garage, and the repairer discovered that the driveshaft was loose, so they tightened up the bolts. Just over a month later, the same thing happened with the driveshaft, leading to damage being caused to the car.

There was therefore a dispute about what the garage had said and done when they tightened the bolts on the driveshaft. The consumer explained that they had been informed by the garage that all bolts and threads had been cleaned up, had applied a bonding product, and torqued the bolts to the recommended setting. The business equally told The Motor Ombudsman in their response, that the consumer had said that they had the CV boots replaced about 800 miles earlier by another garage.

The consumer was claiming for the cost of repairing the damage to settle the dispute. In response, as a gesture of goodwill, the garage tightened up the bolts at no cost, and advised the customer to take the car back to the business that initially carried out the CV boot repairs.

The case outcome:

On reviewing the complaint, it was noted that there was a difference of opinion as to what the consumer had been told by the garage, meaning it was difficult for The Motor Ombudsman to determine which version of events was correct.

Indeed, both parties agreed that the garage had tightened the bolts on the driveshaft, whilst the evidence also showed the garage were the last people to work on this component before it came loose and damaged the SUV.

It was therefore concluded that the work was not completed with reasonable skill and care, and the ombudsman’s final decision saw the consumer awarded the full cost of the repairs to the car, as per the customer’s initial request.

Key learning point:

It is important that any work is clearly documented by a business, and this is especially true when it is a gesture of goodwill and the consumer still needs to take further action to resolve the outstanding issues.

The post Loose SUV driveshaft appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer bought a 12-plate saloon in May 2023, and a couple of months later, they took the 11-year-old vehicle to a dealership for its annual service. During the work, the business diagnosed that the emissions light had come on due to faulty fuel injectors. With the customer’s consent, the business replaced all four injectors, the oil, and the oil filter.
After the work had been completed, the consumer collected their car, and found it to be in poor condition. The windscreen was splattered with bird droppings and the engine bay was covered in oil. In addition, despite the injector replacement, the issue in relation to the emissions light remained unresolved.

In response to the consumer’s complaint, the business offered for the car to be cleaned. However, the vehicle owner believed that the business had misdiagnosed the faults, and had ultimately authorised repairs that they considered unnecessary. The consumer was therefore seeking a full refund for the works totalling £2,150.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, and noted that vehicles are complex, and in some instances, a fault can be caused by many failing components. He explained that replacing one part may highlight further issues that were not originally identifiable.

It was evident that several diagnostic codes were found within the vehicle stating “fuel-air mixture too rich”, which could be associated with a number of issues, but following the manufacturer’s diagnostic process, this concluded the injectors needed to be replaced.

However, after changing the injectors, the business identified further issues with the engine, namely the bore linings were scored, resulting in further engine damage. The damaged injectors would likely have had a direct impact on the state of the engine bores, thus reaffirming the injectors were initially at fault.

However, in order to have identified the damage to the bores, the consumer would have needed to agree to further investigations relating to the engine. The business was originally not authorised to do this, so was unable to notice this upon the consumer’s first visit.

The consumer had provided no refuting evidence that demonstrated the injectors were not damaged or the cause of the engine failure. This aspect of the complaint was therefore not upheld.

The adjudicator then turned to the cleanliness of the vehicle. He stated that, while the engine bay may have been covered in oil, the consumer did not authorise the business to clean this pre-existing mess. Engine bay clean-up is a specialised task and, if the consumer wanted this, they would have needed to agree to this along with any additional costs. The evidence showed that no consent had been given for such a service.

However, the business did have an obligation to treat the vehicle with respect and care. If bird droppings were not present prior to their possession, they should have cleaned the mess before returning the vehicle to the consumer. As a result, the adjudicator recommended that business should clean the vehicle’s windscreen of any bird droppings at no cost, and upheld this element of the consumer’s complaint.

The post Misdiagnosed emissions issue appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer claimed that the dealership had damaged the rear differential of their vehicle when they previously repaired its pinion seal two months earlier. Although the business initially disputed the consumer’s allegations, they accepted responsibility for the additional repair costs after commissioning an independent inspection by a third-party company. The inspection revealed that the repair methods used during the earlier rear differential work were not executed with reasonable care and skill, compromising its integrity and requiring its replacement.

While the business agreed to reimburse the consumer for the additional repair costs they incurred elsewhere, the consumer sought further compensation. They believed that the dealership should also cover the cost of a small rental car during the period when their vehicle was unroadworthy and alleged that the business had discriminated against them based on their gender, as they initially did not take the consumer’s complaint seriously.

In response, the business explained that they initially contested the consumer’s claim of rear differential damage, as the only evidence presented was that they had completed work in the area two months earlier. They did not believe they were responsible for the damage, and arranged for a third-party inspection. After receiving the report, the dealership reconsidered their position and agreed to cover the full cost of the necessary repairs to replace the rear differential, and offered an additional £250 as a goodwill gesture for inconvenience. However, the business declined to pay compensation for costs the consumer had not actually incurred, such as for a rental vehicle that they had ultimately not paid for.

The case outcome:

Considering the available evidence, the adjudicator concluded that, while the initial repairs were not carried out with reasonable care and skill, the business’s offer to resolve the complaint was fair, and even exceeded their obligations by providing a goodwill gesture for inconvenience, which The Motor Ombudsman does not typically award. The adjudicator agreed that reimbursing the consumer for the additional repair costs incurred at a third-party dealership was the appropriate resolution to the complaint.

The adjudicator also determined that the hire car costs for which the consumer sought compensation were hypothetical losses. Since the consumer had not actually incurred these costs, the adjudicator could not award the compensation being sought.

Additionally, the adjudicator found that it was reasonable for the business to initially contest the consumer’s allegations of poor repairs, given that they had not been presented with sufficient evidence to suggest they were responsible for the damage to the rear differential. The adjudicator noted that the business acted appropriately by proposing an independent inspection of the vehicle, which they arranged in cooperation with the consumer.

Finally, the adjudicator recognised that it was beyond The Motor Ombudsman’s remit to make rulings on discrimination claims. Any complaints of this nature would need to be addressed through the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

The post Rear differential damage appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.