The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a used 15-plate premium saloon for around £22,000 from a dealership in June 2018. Around four years later, in October 2022, the car failed to start. Due to financial difficulties, the consumer was unable to initially have their car recovered for repair. However, when it did eventually go into a franchise dealer (belonging to the same manufacturer as their vehicle), the problem was diagnosed as a faulty electronic control unit (ECU), and that there was no evidence of misuse of the car by the owner.
Nevertheless, the business explained that the consumer was still obliged to cover the cost of the repairs and, aware of their consumer rights, the consumer went back to the seller to request that they that they either recover and repair the vehicle at no cost to them, provide an identical replacement vehicle, or offer appropriate compensation.
The customer also stated that the selling dealership had, at one point, given the option to part exchange their car for another at no additional cost. However, the business disputed the claim, leading the consumer to submit a subject access request to disclose the data they had on them. The business responded with this information, but the consumer deemed that certain call recordings had been withheld. The consumer equally said that the dealership had pressured them into deleting recordings once the business had become aware the consumer was recording calls without their permission.
In response, the business stated that they had not deliberately withheld any data from the consumer and had not received any requests for call recordings. While they did not directly address any promises regarding a replacement vehicle, they expressed confusion as to why the consumer chose to scrap the vehicle instead of contacting them about a potential part-exchange if that was their intention. The business did not provide a formal position regarding the vehicle’s electrical faults.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties and provided the following conclusions on the three different aspects of the complaint:
Data concerns
The adjudicator established that complaints relating to an individual’s access to their personal data fall outside The Motor Ombudsman’s remit. As issues concerning access to personal data are regulated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the adjudicator stated that the consumer should contact the ICO, as they are the appropriate authority to investigate such matters.
Promises regarding a replacement vehicle
The adjudicator found that, for an agreement to be legally binding, the consumer would have needed to provide “consideration”, such as payment or an exchange of value, for the alleged promise of a replacement vehicle. As there was no evidence of this, any promise made by the business was deemed a goodwill gesture rather than a contractual obligation. Since there was no evidence of a legally binding agreement for a replacement vehicle, the business would have been within its rights to withdraw from any informal promise that may have allegedly been made.
The consumer’s claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
The adjudicator reviewed the third-party invoice provided by the consumer, which confirmed the vehicle had an electrical fault. However, the vehicle was over eight years old and had already exceeded 100,000 miles at this point. They had also owned the vehicle for more than four years.
The adjudicator noted that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, taking into account factors such as age, mileage, and condition. Given that the ECU had failed after more than four years of use, the adjudicator concluded that this did not indicate that there was an inherent defect with the vehicle. Additionally, the third-party invoice provided by the consumer neither specified the cause of the failure.
Moreover, since the vehicle had already reached what The Motor Ombudsman considers to be the average lifespan of a car, the adjudicator found that, even if an inherent defect had been present, its failure at this mileage would not make the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consequently, the consumer was not entitled to any further remedies under this legislation.
Based on the evidence provided, the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no award was made. The outcome was not disputed by either party, and the case was closed.
