Insight 14 www.aftermarketonline.net MAY 2025 There are some occasions where, as part of the evidence presented by a customer in their case that is brought to The Motor Ombudsman (TMO), they will refer to agreements made verbally with a business — usually while explaining the course of events that drove the dispute. This could be, for instance, the offer of a price reduction, some work being conducted free-of-charge, or a commitment to providing something like a courtesy car while repairs are being carried out on their own vehicle, and subsequently not being honoured. However, with TMO essentially acting as an impartial ‘referee’ that is looking to reach a fair outcome for all, using the spoken word as a source of credible evidence and hard facts when determining what happened, presents the following key challenges for an adjudicator: As TMO is not directly privy to conversations between consumers and businesses (we were not there at the time, and while it is never discounted by us that these exchanges took place), it is very difficult to substantiate exactly what was said and use it as formal evidence. This is because a consumer and a business may have differing interpretations and recollections of what was agreed and could unknowingly introduce an element of bias or mispresent what was discussed. Linked to the above point, English may not necessarily be the first language of one or, in fact, either party, meaning conversations may be subject to misunderstandings both at the time of discussion, and at the point that they are recounted. This brings an added layer of complexity to verbal evidence, as translations may equally vary in their accuracy when transcribed to support the basis of what occurred from one or both parties’ perspectives. Similarly, individuals may have challenges with writing in general regardless of their background, thereby making it a difficult task to transpose a conversation onto paper or an email, for example. When TMO works towards a decision, there is never any element of bias or preferential treatment of either the consumer or the business. The same is applied to evidence which stemmed from a verbal conversation. Therefore, just because one version of what was said may seem more credible or clearly explained, this does not give TMO carte blanche to take sides. There are some instances that we see where paper trails submitted by a party may conflict with the recollection of verbal conversations. As documentation provided by a consumer or a business carries the most weight when reaching a decision, this will be relied upon and take precedence when a fair and impartial outcome is being determined, once again highlighting the importance of having everything consistently written down. In light of the challenges, TMO has the following key tips for garages when communicating with customers: O Make sure that all agreements are written down and supported by applicable paperwork, such as quotes, emails, and job cards; O Always follow-up in writing as to what was agreed verbally, and ensure that the understanding is mutual on the points raised; O Record any face-to-face conversations if there is the consent of all involved, and customers are clear how this data will be protected and may be used; O Use plain and simple jargon-free language that is fully transparent and easily understood by everyone; O Ensure provisions and procedures are in place to support vulnerable consumers. Making agreements verbally with customers can inadvertently create an added layer of conflict and complexity, and leave the doors open to differing degrees of interpretation, especially when it comes to forming the basis of crucial evidence and decisionmaking in the event of a dispute. Whilst open discussion is a valuable and encouraged form of communication, and even more important in the sphere of conflict resolution, it does bring challenges in the determination of decisions by an ADR provider, such as TMO, due to the absence of firm documented fact. The power of the written word is therefore a key driver of resolution and should always be front of mind when interacting with customers, so as to provide a fully documented journey at every touchpoint with them, in the event that any issues should ever arise. Visit www. TheMotorOmbudsman. org/join for details about accreditation to TMO’s Service and Repair Code. Weighing up conversations Bill Fennell, chief ombudsman and MD at The Motor Ombudsman, considers the challenges of relying on face-to-face conversations between businesses and consumers as a form of evidence in resolving disputes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ0NzM=