The case
A consumer took his car to a local company to repair a fault in its air conditioning (AC) system. The company carried out multiple repair attempts, including replacing key components such as the compressor, pressure switch and pipes, and repeatedly assured the consumer that the issue had been resolved.
However, despite these interventions, the fault persisted. The consumer was eventually informed that the issue stemmed from the evaporator, which allegedly could not withstand the nitrogen pressure used during testing. At no stage during the repair process was the consumer informed of any risks or potential additional costs.
Following the unsuccessful repairs, the consumer requested a refund of the €850 paid for services that did not resolve the malfunction.
As the dispute could not be settled directly with the company, the consumer registered a formal complaint at the Office for Consumer Affairs of the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority. After conciliation proved unsuccessful, the matter was escalated to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal started by noting that the company was rejecting the consumer’s refund claim, citing the fact that the car was over 30 years old, and the complexity and wear and tear of its AC system, which made diagnosis difficult.
The company argued that all repairs, including part replacements, were necessary and carried out with the consumer’s approval. It further claimed that the evaporator may also have been defective and contributed to the refrigerant leak, but this could not be confirmed without dismantling the dashboard, which the consumer did not authorise.
The company denied causing any damage, attributing the evaporator’s failure to wear and tear. It further noted that it had provided discounts on certain diagnostic tests and therefore considered its conduct to have been fair and reasonable throughout the repair process.
The tribunal acknowledged the difficulty in reaching a determination due to the conflicting evidence presented. In this regard, it referred to Article 562 of the Laws of Malta (Chapter 12), which provides that, subject to any other provision of law, the burden of proving a fact rests on the party alleging it.
The tribunal also cited Article 558 of Chapter 12, which requires the court to rely on the best evidence that the parties are able to produce in support of their respective claims.
“The consumer did not submit any independent expert reports”
The tribunal observed that it was undisputed that the consumer had engaged the company to repair the vehicle’s AC system, which had an existing leak. Following the initial intervention, the consumer paid €650. The vehicle was later returned as repaired, but the consumer was required to bring it back and paid a further €200, after which the AC fault reoccurred.
During the third repair attempt, the facts are disputed. The consumer claims a company representative suggested the evaporator may have been damaged during testing, affecting the system. The company denies this, supporting its position with an affidavit, and explained that accessing the evaporator would require dismantling the dashboard, a procedure the consumer did not authorise due to cost and risk.
The tribunal held that the central issue was whether the works carried out by the company were necessary and whether the ongoing defect in the AC system resulted from damage sustained during those repairs.
It further noted that the consumer did not submit any independent expert reports or request the appointment of an expert, which could have assisted in establishing the facts.
In the absence of such expert evidence, the tribunal relied on the explanations and submissions provided by both parties. It also held that the company should have conducted a proper diagnosis before starting repairs and informed the consumer that it could only address immediately identifiable faults, such as the compressor, while advising that other underlying defects might exist.
Instead, the company reassured the consumer that the repairs undertaken would resolve the issue, despite being aware that multiple components could have caused the gas leak. The tribunal was also not convinced that adequate testing had been carried out, noting that the consumer had to return the vehicle to the garage on three occasions, with the fault recurring within 24 hours each time.
On this basis, the tribunal concluded that the repairs did not achieve the expected outcome and that the company must bear responsibility.
The tribunal’s decision
In light of the above, the tribunal partially upheld the consumer’s claim and ordered the company to pay €650 in damages.
The tribunal further ruled that the costs of the proceedings are to be borne equally by both parties.
Readers can access the full details of decisions issued by the Consumer Claims Tribunal, including information on the parties involved, by visiting: https://mccaa.org.mt/cct.
Odette Vella is director, Information, Education and Research, Office for Consumer Affairs, MCCAA.
