Business support: Crisis management No matter how well prepared we think we are, there will always be unexpected problems that keep us on our toes, but we can end up in a better place by investigating what went wrong and improving our work practices. Poor communication, or a complete lack of, is the root of many issues but there are preparations, software and resources that can help prevent slip ups and there’s support available when disputes arise and a resolution seems impossible without outside intervention Whether you are a technician or a workshop owner, having a structured work process in place and using clear non-technical language to communicate effectively with customers will prevent many issues arising in the first place. We spoke to The Motor Ombudsman who have over 7,500 automotive businesses in the UK signed up to its codes of practice, which cover servicing and repairs, extended warranties and car sales. They are designed to offer clear-cut customer service expectations for car owners and a revenue opportunity for accredited businesses. They have unlimited access to an information line and adjudication service – with a team of legally trained adjudicators who can take calls from disgruntled car owners when things go wrong and guide you through a dispute resolution process, offering fair and reasonable decisions. We take a look at a recent case where unclear customer charges, and confusion over wording, resulted in a dispute, to see what lessons can be learned…
Repair estimate confusion
CRISIS MANAGEMENT
The customer’s issue:
10
"However, the customer mistakenly assumed that the estimate was an invoice, although it clearly said at the bottom of the page that it was not an invoice. In fact, there were two headlamps on the estimate because we were unsure which one the customer needed and informed them that it would either be one or the other. Nevertheless, the vehicle owner assumed that we would be charging them for both. "The consumer eventually came to the business to discuss the invoice and we explained which items were mandatory for passing the MOT and which were not. Following this, they authorised the required repairs. "Whilst there appears to have been a breakdown in communication, which we apologise for, the customer was invoiced for the works that they had previously agreed to. Therefore, we do not believe the customer is due any further financial compensation."
The adjudication outcome: The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator found that the document was an estimate, indicating the price for future repairs, as stated at the bottom of the document. However, the adjudicator also saw that the wording used on the document was likely to have been misunderstood. This is because it informed the customer that the car had failed a MOT and a number of items were in need of repair. The paperwork equally failed to distinguish between advisories and mandatory items, which had to be repaired in order to pass the MOT. The wording of the document therefore fell below the expected standard, and the business was found to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Service and Repair.
“I took my car to the dealership for a MOT and service but was provided with a bill for £2,529.29. The previous garage I used did not charge more than £550, which included changing the tyres. When I queried the bill, I was told that all the work was necessary and that my vehicle would not be released unless all the work was done to comply with MOT requirements.
The adjudicator concluded that, since the actions of the business did not cause the customer to suffer financial loss, they did not make a financial award to the consumer. However, the business was directed to apologise to the customer for their actions.
“I then went to the workshop to question the invoice and found two lots of headlights that were not needed. Eventually, the invoice was miraculously reduced to £1,072. I regard this as a deliberate attempt at price gauging, and I am seeking a full explanation for the business’ actions, as well as compensation. So far, the business has failed to respond to my complaint.”
Neither party requested an appeal of the adjudication outcome that had been made, and the case was closed.
The accredited workshop’s response: "The customer booked in their car for a MOT and service. However, it failed its MOT because of a faulty headlamp and tyre. We therefore sent the customer an estimate for the cost of the repairs. This included a few other items from the Vehicle Health Check, which we had already completed.
Conclusion:
Recommendations for garages from this case: • Make sure that the customer is clear when they are provided with an estimate or an invoice. • Use simple language that can be easily understood by the customer. • An apology may be the most appropriate and straightforward remedy. In this case, the customer had suffered no financial loss, so it was not appropriate to consider a monetary award.
