The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a near-new used 65-plate SUV with around 2,500 miles on the clock from a dealership in December 2016. After around two years of ownership, the car started to have intermittent issues with the air conditioning. When I returned the car to the business on several occasions, they conducted repairs on the vehicle, but the problem just came back.
I believe that my SUV was sold with a pre-existing fault, and to conclude my complaint, I am looking for £5,000 to cover costs incurred to date, and for my vehicle to be repaired at no charge under warranty. I would also be happy to accept a two-year-old replacement vehicle, or a full refund as an alternative remedy.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer first reported the issue with the air conditioning in August 2018 after completing 16,000 miles since taking ownership, which would suggest that any faults were pre-existing at time of delivery.
- At this point, we liaised with the vehicle manufacturer’s technical department, and suspected the compressor had broken up and contaminated the system. All air conditioning components were therefore replaced.
- The consumer returned a couple of months later, and metal swarf was found. A compressor was ordered from a new batch, and parts were changed on this occasion.
- Around a year or so went by, and the consumer brought the car back to us with the same fault. This time we couldn’t find any issues, and completed a software update on this occasion.
- Six months, and 2,000 miles later, the consumer returned the car to us, but we could not replicate the highlighted fault.
- The consumer subsequently agreed to leave the car with us for a more extended period for testing. We found one of the six sensors which measured temperature and flow was found to be intermittently active. We replaced this sensor and road-tested the vehicle extensively to ensure the fault was resolved.
- The consumer was also provided with a replacement vehicle, and was updated regularly at the agreed intervals.
- Once this intermittent fault had been identified and resolved, a service and MOT were carried out for free as a gesture of goodwill. For added peace of mind, we also extended the consumer’s warranty for a further year, which the consumer duly accepted as full and final settlement.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator found there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality in relation to the air conditioning fault.
- As there was no breach of the sales contract, the adjudicator did not uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
The response to the adjudication outcome:
- The consumer disagreed with the adjudication outcome, as they felt that their complaint had not been resolved, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman noted both parties had already accepted there was a previous fault with the air conditioning, as it had been repaired under warranty.
- He also said that he would not expect a vehicle of the age and mileage seen, to experience faults so soon after purchase.
- The ombudsman added that sensors are internal parts which are not serviceable items or particularly subject to excess wear, meaning they should not fail prematurely of their own accord.
- As such, the ombudsman concluded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale, and partially upheld the consumer’s complaint on this point.
- The ombudsman remarked that the consumer felt that the issues with their vehicle had not been resolved, and that they were going to provide additional evidence to support this.
- However, none was supplied to refute the fact there was still a defect, and that it had not been repaired by the business.
- As the consumer had work carried out on their vehicle, which was the correct remedy in the circumstances and had already been actioned, the ombudsman made no further award.
Conclusion:
- Neither party responded to the ombudsman’s final decision, and the case was closed.
