May 2019

MAY 2019 AFTERMARKET 13 www.aftermarketonline.net different vehicles brands) and the continued safety or environment compliance of the vehicle becomes a matter for the legislator via roadworthiness (i.e. MOT) testing. However, the terms ‘spare parts of matching quality’ and ‘original quality parts’ are commonly used by parts manufacturers and independent repair workshops can rightly choose to use these parts from renowned independent parts suppliers. Approval In contrast to the vertical restraints regime defining the minimum rules for the external sourcing of spare parts for dealers/franchised repairers, there is also a technical type-approval regime in the EU for certain replacement parts. It defines a minimum set of technical requirements which all vehicles/components etc. must fulfil to be placed on the European market. Examples include tyres, windscreens, headlamps and more recently brake system components, such as pads, shoes, discs and drums. To be clear, the Commission have stated that the vehicle manufacturer may not require for regular repair and maintenance (i.e. for operations not covered by the warranty) the use of their own branded spare parts or spare parts of a specific supplier (e.g. lubricants). However, if an alternative spare part caused a damage or failure, the VM may legitimately refuse the warranty. However, this does not apply if the consumer bought an ‘extended’ warranty scheme from a vehicle manufacturer or an authorised repairer some years after the purchase of the new vehicle (because according to the Commission independent operators would then have had a fair chance to also offer alternative warranty schemes to consumers). At the parts wholesaler level, an independent parts distributor (acting as agent for an independent repairer) is considered as an extension of the contracting party (i.e. the independent repairer). This delegation must be made clear (e.g. instructions to purchase a defined order) to distinguish it from a reseller/trader/wholesale function, which the VM may legitimately forbid under the BER. In terms of new vehicle technologies, a VM may in principle not refuse access to technical information to IOs for ‘safety’ or ‘security’ reasons, as the VM has a monopoly position on this kind of information, but for safety related aspects, the only caveat made by the Commission is access to highly critical safety-related parts (e.g. high voltage components) where the VM might require the independent repairer to attend a training organised by the VM or a delegated undertaking. However, the VM needs to apply the least restrictive means. For security-related information, a criminal record check could also be seen as appropriate. In summary, BER provides an important foundation for the UK aftermarket, but as I said at the beginning, this is now being reviewed as an ‘evaluation roadmap’. xenconsultancy.com Next month: Neil will look at what this may need to look like as a future version of this important legislation