Muhammad Parvez appeals QCAT decision in case against Brisbane BMW dealership over car service

A man who accused a BMW mechanic of overfilling the engine oil when servicing his car has lost his legal case against the dealership.

A customer has failed in his bid to have BMW “rectify damage”. (File picture)

A man who accused a BMW mechanic of overfilling the engine oil when servicing his car has lost his legal case against the dealership.

Muhammad Parvez took his claim against Brisbane BMW to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, wanting the dealership to “rectify the damage”.

According to QCAT documents, Mr Parvez’s car was serviced by Brisbane BMW in December 2020, but he was not happy with his vehicle’s performance, so he took it to Bavaria Motors in May 2021 and Eurozone in July 2021.

In December 2021, Mr Parvez noticed an amber light on his dashboard which he found indicated that the engine oil was overfilled.

Mr Parvez claimed that Brisbane BMW had overfilled his engine oil, contrary to its obligation under the Australian Consumer Law, and caused ongoing damage to the car’s engine. The alleged inflicted damage was not specified.

He previously brought his case before QCAT and his original application was dismissed. Mr Parvez appealed against this decision, wanting to produce fresh evidence.

The Brisbane BMW mechanic who did the original service gave a statutory declaration saying he filled the car engine with 6.7 litres of oil, which was the recommended level.

Mr Parvez’s new evidence included a statutory declaration from Bavaria Motors owner Mick Sadler saying his business did not carry out any service or repairs on the car’s oil level.

However, Mr Sadler could not swear to the condition of the engine or the oil level when Mr Parvez brought his car to them.

The original QCAT assessment deliberately did not attribute blame for the overfilled oil to a particular mechanic or dealership.

In her decision on Mr Parvez’s appeal, QCAT judicial member Peta Gwen Stilgoe said: “A receipt from Bavaria Motor contained a $13.20 charge for ‘workshop consumables’ but did not specify whether this was for engine oil or other miscellaneous items.

“The (original QCAT assessment) considered that another mechanic topping up the engine was a reasonable hypothesis, and that it was possible that Bavaria Motor was responsible.

“The transcript shows that they explicitly did not decide whether that had occurred.

“The (original QCAT assessment) clarified that the only finding they were required to make was whether Brisbane BMW had overfilled the engine at the original service.”

Mr Parvez further argued that the original decision was wrong to ignore the fact that Brisbane BMW did not create a report when removing overfilled oil from his engine.

But again, this argument carried little weight.

“There was no evidence to suggest that a report should have ordinarily been made by a mechanic,” Ms Stilgoe said in her decision.

“Even so, Mr Parvez has not explained why that report was important or how it would have assisted his case.

“Mr Parvez did not seek an independent report into the oil removed from the car, nor did he ask Brisbane BMW to provide a report.”

Ultimately, Mr Parvez’s application to appeal and produce new evidence was rejected.

Originally published as Muhammad Parvez appeals QCAT decision in case against Brisbane BMW dealership over car service