MISA member Louis Redelinghuys, Service Manager at Land Rover Stellenbosch, ponders wether doing the right thing when something inadvertently goes wrong with a customer’s car is dead and buried in the motor industry.

He writes: Doing the right thing is a concept, but especially when finances are stretched, is all but dead and buried in the motor industry.

Many dealers duck and dive, drag things out indefinitely, and simply don’t take ownership of unfavourable situations caused by or directly attributable to them or their representatives.

Whatever happened to the principle of taking responsibility for what you have done? Instead, dealers are often prepared to risk some really nasty and unfavourable exposure by various media forms. Radio talk shows, consumer columns in newspapers, and letters pages in motoring publications invariably contain at least one example of a disgruntled or aggrieved vehicle owner who believes he or she has been done in by their once trusted local dealer.

Responsibility to look after customer’s possessions
If a customer leaves their vehicle in my custody, I have a responsibility to treat their possession with the requisite respect and care I would exercise with my own possessions. If I or one of my staff damage their car, I repair it. No cover ups, no indemnities, no legal proceedings - just a sincere, honest apology, followed by making right the damage.

Periodic accidents and damages are part and parcel of any retail motor industry business, and cannot always be avoided. Customers are often blown away by a dealer adopting a morally correct and responsible approach, as the opposite is most often expected.

Two possible approaches when vehicles are misfuelled
One of the common ones that occur in the motor trade is the misfuelled vehicle, where the incorrect fuel is added to the tank on the forecourt.

Here we see a few different responses. Some fuel station owners refuse point blank to accept any form of responsibility, choosing instead to ‘remind’ the vehicle owner that it is their sole responsibility to ensure that the pump attendant is selecting the appropriate fuel for their vehicle, and then send them packing.

Then we have fuel station owners who immediately contact a repairing dealer to arrange for the incorrect fuel to be removed, as well as any contamination dealt with, and then arrange to have the vehicle transported to the dealership, whilst offering the client a mobility solution.

Two very different responses indeed, with a 'reputational' outcome difference that is all but tangible. I know that some, if not all garage owners, have insurance to cover this type of error and resultant expense, but whether or not they actually claim would surely depend on specific circumstances and criteria.

Windscreen damage at dealerships
The second one is windscreens. Consider the customer whose car is being collected and delivered by the servicing dealer. This represents an inconvenience and expense at the very least, to the dealer.

On the way back to the dealership, a stone flicked up by a passing vehicle breaks the screen. Once again, we see two conflicting responses. The fair, correct one is for the vehicle owner to adopt the understanding (&$%^ happens…) approach, and claim from their insurance. Unfortunately, though, we have the ‘alternative’ response too. I have had vehicle owners tell me: “There was nothing wrong with my windscreen when you collected the car - it is YOUR problem…”, and then refuse to pay.

It is at times such as these that we wish we could simply chase these vehicle owners away for them never to return, but once again, is it worth the negative publicity they may create over the incident?

Fortunately for us service folks, the majority of customers are more understanding, and in fact most appreciative of the lengths we often go to in order to provide as seamless a grudge event as possible.

Return to main article