I am in dispute with an Audi dealership in Exeter over repair costs for my 11-year-old Audi Q3. When I booked in my car, to deal with the issue of the alarm going off sporadically, I was told there would be a £160 charge to diagnose the problem.
I was then contacted by the garage to say it still didn’t know what the problem was. It could be the control panel, but it would cost me another two hours (£340) of diagnostic testing to find out. I felt I had no option but to agree.
A day later, I was advised that the fault was, indeed, the control panel, which needed replacing, and a price was quoted. Following that, the garage rang again to say that the horn sounded a bit squeaky, and that needed replacing.
In total, to have the car alarm fixed and a new horn, the cost was £1,480. I was also charged £50 to replace a single windscreen wiper blade, although this was later refunded.
The response to my complaint that I was overcharged has been confusing: we billed you for this and not for that, you didn’t pay labour on the horn, we have 11 technicians on the team, etc.
Going to a dealership garage means I expect to pay a premium, given operational costs and shiny showrooms, but charging so much for estimates feels very wrong.
DT, Devon
I don’t think I would have taken an 11-year-old car anywhere near an Audi dealership because you are just opening yourself up to this kind of experience.
I’m not sure when it became the norm for this type of diagnostic charging to take place, but it is now ubiquitous.
Whether you were taken for a ride or not, only the dealer staff will know. The fact that the dealer was happy to charge you £50 to replace a single wiper blade – on top of a £1,480 bill – and only took it off after you complained, tells a story of sorts.
The problem you have is that it is very hard to argue the bill after the event. If you really believe the dealer should have diagnosed the problem more quickly – and can produce a report from an expert that demonstrates that – you could bring a small claims action. Companies have to act with reasonable skill, but without such a report, you would have a limited chance of success.
A better option might be the Motor Ombudsman, which some readers have had success with in the past. Or just put your energy into finding a VW/Audi specialist that will probably carry out any future work on your car at a fraction of the cost of the main dealer.
For its part, Audi tells me your charges were entirely justified, and that you agreed to all the work before it was done. “Vehicle inspections and repairs are carried out to the highest of standards by trained Audi technicians using specialist diagnostic equipment. This is essential to accurately identify vehicle faults,” it says.
How have other Audi drivers found main dealer repair costs? Email the usual address.
And tax rebates – a follow-up
Last week we featured a letter from IW complaining that her daughter SW had been sent a tax rebate for just £8.66, while the rest of the £60.40 she was due had somehow been sent to a company that she had never heard of, Ensign Advisory.
When she contacted HM Revenue and Customs, she was told it had a signed document from her giving authority to the company to deal with her tax affairs.
Several other readers contacted us this week to say that they, too, had had a similar experience, albeit with other tax rebate claims firms.
More than 2,000 people complained to HMRC last year about this issue; however, we are starting to wonder how many other taxpayers are completely unaware that they have suffered the same fate?
HMRC’s response has been to blame agents who, in some cases, appear to have been faking signatures, but shouldn’t it have been doing more to protect taxpayers? Extraordinary.
Remember you can make a tax rebate claim direct with HMRC via gov.uk; this is free and you will receive 100% of any refund.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions
