A self-employed driving instructor has received compensation from Nissan after a prolonged repair delay left his leased dual-control car off the road for three months and put his income at risk.
The instructor, identified as CW from Eastbourne in a consumer case first reported by The Guardian, said he had been unable to use the vehicle while it awaited a replacement part. He said the delay forced him to hire another dual-control car to continue teaching pupils, while still making finance payments on the Nissan.
According to the account, the car had already been unavailable for three months when the estimated date for the part was pushed back again, with the repair not expected for at least a further month. The delay created a serious financial problem because the vehicle was central to the instructor’s work.
Driving instructors generally require cars fitted with dual controls so they can intervene safely during lessons. For self-employed instructors, the loss of a suitable vehicle can quickly affect bookings, income and customer relationships, particularly if pupils are preparing for tests or have already paid for lessons.
CW said he had spent more than £2,500 hiring a replacement dual-control vehicle, while also continuing to pay about £1,500 in personal contract purchase finance for the Nissan during the period it could not be used. He also said he had borrowed more than £1,000 from relatives to extend the hire arrangement.
The immediate concern was that the hire contract for the replacement car was due to expire on 15 April. Without reimbursement or a confirmed repair, CW said he would not have enough money to renew the hire, leaving him unable to teach and at risk of losing pupils and income.
The case highlights the practical impact that parts shortages and repair delays can have on drivers who rely on a vehicle for work. While many motorists may be able to make temporary arrangements when a car is unavailable, those using specialised vehicles, such as taxis, vans or dual-control cars, can face higher replacement costs and fewer suitable hire options.
In this case, the instructor said he had been given changing timescales and insufficient clarity over whether his additional costs would be covered. The reported estimated repair date had been postponed several times before external intervention prompted further contact with Nissan.
Nissan later agreed to reimburse the instructor for the hire car costs up to the repair date, although there was concern that payment would not arrive before the hire contract expired. The company also said it had sourced the required spare part and scheduled the repair for 15 April, the same day the replacement hire vehicle was due to be returned.
According to the report, Nissan indicated that reimbursement should be made within 10 days. That raised a further difficulty because, if the repair had been delayed again, the instructor would have needed funds immediately to keep the hire car and continue working.
The company was reported to have said it would directly fund any further hire arrangements if required, although it did not put that commitment in writing. The repair was ultimately completed in time, preventing the instructor from having to stop work when the hire contract ended.
After the vehicle was repaired, the dispute turned to compensation for the wider effect of the delay. CW calculated that, beyond the hire costs, he had incurred nearly £900 in lost earnings and other expenses because of the disruption and uncertainty.
Nissan initially offered two years of free servicing. The instructor objected, saying he had already paid in advance for a service plan and was due to replace the car in 12 months, making the offer of limited practical value to him.
Following further exchanges, Nissan apologised for its handling of the case and agreed to pay compensation. The amount has not been disclosed.
In a statement reported in the original account, Nissan said it was “sympathetic to the customer’s experience”, adding that it had fallen below the standards the company and its dealer partners aimed to provide.
The case underlines the importance for drivers who depend on their cars for work to keep detailed records of repair delays, hire costs, finance payments and lost earnings when seeking redress. For those using specialist vehicles, delays can carry costs well beyond inconvenience, particularly where replacement vehicles are expensive or difficult to secure.
