The consumer’s issue:
The customer purchased a used ’69-plate crossover SUV for £17,000 from a dealership in July 2022. In February 2023, the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing fault where the water leaked into the injectors and fuel rail. As a result, the vehicle required these components, as well as the cylinder head, to be replaced. Although the manufacturer had recalled similar models, they had not recalled this particular variant, and at the time of the issue, the vehicle was under five years of age, and had less than 30,000 miles on the clock.
The manufacturer initially offered goodwill to cover the repair cost of around £3,100 as a gesture of goodwill, but then later reduced this offer, with them covering 50%, and the dealer offering 20%. The consumer was therefore asked to pay for the remaining part of the bill, which they did.
The case outcome:
When considering faults that occur more than six months after the sale of a vehicle, the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault which was present at the point of sale. Whilst it was the consumer’s obligation to substantiate that the fault was due to a manufacturing defect, in this situation the party with the most knowledge as to what had gone wrong with the vehicle would have been the repairer i.e. the seller, that carried out the work.
The adjudicator requested further evidence from the business to gain a deeper understanding as to the cause of the issue. Unfortunately, the seller did not respond. This meant that the only potential explanation for the cause of the faults was the reason advocated by the consumer i.e. that it was a manufacturing defect. With no further evidence to explain why the components failed at such an early stage, the adjudicator found that on a balance of probabilities that the failure was due to a manufacturing defect.
As the consumer had already paid for a portion of the repair, the adjudicator awarded the consumer a refund of this amount from the dealership.
