The article “focused on a small number of allegations with which we fundamentally disagree,” states Roger Griggs
The Mail on Sunday has engaged in a spot of sleuthing, and claims that Kwik Fit charged its undercover reporters for car parts that were never changed and urged them to consent to certain repairs it says were unnecessary. In response, a spokesperson for the vehicle repair and fast-fit chain states that the Mail on Sunday article “focused on a small number of allegations with which we fundamentally disagree.”
In its opening gambit, the Mail on Sunday reminds us of the slogan ‘You can’t get better than a Kwik Fit fitter’, and then the publication proceeds to tell us why it thinks we can. After speaking to a “whistleblower from the company,” it sent cars that had already been undergone MOT inspections at an independent garage to five different Kwik Fit outlets for full services.
While some repairs quoted by Kwik Fit were considered “reasonable” and “necessary” by Mark Brown, a forensic vehicle examiner who acted as the Mail on Sunday’s expert, others were not: The newspaper claims that wheel alignment was performed upon a freshly-aligned car at a cost of £49.95. Another reporter was allegedly told her vehicle’s wheel may potentially fall off if she didn’t pay £151.60 for a new bearing, even though the Mail on Sunday’s expert claims it didn’t need changing. Other issues reported by the Mail on Sunday on 12 February were the non-fitment of new spark plugs invoiced as part of a service package, the failure to rectify a car’s leaking oil filter and filling a vehicle’s windscreen wash tank with insufficient anti-freeze.
While the Mail on Sunday describes these alleged departures from best practice as “the great Kwik Fit fit-up,” company communications director Roger Griggs informed Tyrepress.com that Kwik Fit has “carried out a lengthy investigation” into the paper’s claims since being presented with their allegations. “As a result of this we have provided evidence to the paper to prove that many of the statements they were making were inaccurate, and offered for the cars to be re-inspected, however the paper refused this,” shared Griggs in a statement.
Griggs added: “We had made a series of recommendations about the cars which the newspaper accepted were reasonable, however the article focused on a small number of allegations with which we fundamentally disagree.”