A self-employed driving instructor from Eastbourne has faced significant financial hardship due to a prolonged delay in the repair of a leased Nissan dual-control vehicle. The car, essential for the instructor’s work, has been out of service for more than three months, with the repair further delayed by at least an additional month because of a shortage of spare parts.

The instructor has incurred substantial costs hiring a replacement dual-control car to continue teaching, totaling over £2,500 to date. At the same time, they have been obligated to continue making monthly PCP finance payments of about £1,500 on the unusable vehicle. To cover these expenses, the instructor borrowed over £1,000 from family members but faces the prospect of having to cease work once those funds are exhausted, risking the loss of customers and income.

Efforts to resolve the issue began in March, when repeated postponements of the repair were reported. The estimated repair completion date moved several times, with little communication or clarity from Nissan regarding timelines or reimbursement for the hire costs. The instructor paid a monthly hire fee of £952 alongside the ongoing finance payments.

After intervention from a third party, Nissan agreed to reimburse the instructor’s car hire costs up to the repair date, although payment delays persisted. The company eventually sourced the needed spare part, scheduling the repair for mid-April, coinciding with the expiration of the hire contract. Nissan advised that reimbursement would be processed within 10 days but initially declined to guarantee direct funding for any extended hire period if further delays occurred. The vehicle was repaired just in time to avoid a lapse in the hire contract.

Following the vehicle’s return, the instructor sought compensation for additional losses, including nearly £900 attributed to lost earnings and other expenses due to the delays. Nissan’s initial offer included two years of complimentary servicing, which the instructor declined, noting that a paid service plan was already in place and that the vehicle was due for replacement within a year.

After continued dialogue, Nissan apologized for the handling of the case and agreed to provide compensation, the terms of which remain confidential. The company stated it sympathizes with the customer’s experience and acknowledged that the service provided failed to meet its usual standards or those of its dealer network.