The consumer’s issue:

In March 2024, a consumer collected their new compact SUV from a franchise dealership. A week later, they experienced issues with the speaker system, and took their car back to the seller for a repair. The consumer was informed that, if the issue continued, then new speakers would be ordered. The issue persisted however, and the following month, the consumer contacted the dealership for new speakers and explained the infotainment screen had also gone blank, meaning there was now a couple of faults with the vehicle.

The consumer got back in touch with the business to report what was happening, and to request the supply of new parts, but they received no response from the dealership. After the consumer repeatedly followed up with the business, the vehicle was eventually repaired, and after fixing the issues, which also included experiencing no speed, fuel or rev indicators, the infotainment screen froze once again.

With multiple faults occurring since buying the car, the consumer expressed their wish to reject it, but was told by the dealership that they could not find fault any faults with it and could not offer any further assistance.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, including correspondence, repair records, and videos of the vehicle’s faults. They noted that, as the issues arose within the first six months of purchase, the burden was on the dealership to show the defects were not inherent at the point of sale.

The adjudicator explained that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where a fault is found, the seller has one opportunity to repair the goods before the buyer can exercise the right to reject. Whilst the business had replaced the speakers and carried out a software update, the consumer’s videos showed the infotainment screen freezing and the speedometer failing to display – issues impacting both usability and safety.

Given that the problems persisted after attempts to fix the car, the adjudicator concluded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when sold, amounting to a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.

Conclusion:

As the business had exhausted its right to repair and the consumer wished to reject the vehicle, the adjudicator upheld the complaint and directed the dealership to accept the rejection as the viable remedy.

After receiving the outcome, the consumer however, proceed to part-exchange their vehicle, meaning they were no longer able to reject their vehicle, and the case was closed.

Key learning point:

It is important that when faults arise within six months, businesses should evidence repairs that have been carried out to resolve the issue, and consumers should keep clear records to support any ongoing issues.