The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a two-year-old used SUV from a retailer in May 2018 for £21,000. Three years after the point of sale in May 2021, at the vehicle’s fourth annual service interval at a franchise dealership (during the COVID-19 pandemic), technicians noted that the consumer had informed them about an oil leak from the differential which required repair. The business tightened the securing bolts to rectify the issue, and advised the consumer to call back within a month to return the car to the workshop to see whether the repair had proved effective. However, the consumer did not pursue this course of action.
Instead, over 17 months later, they complained to the manufacturer and requested the differential was replaced under warranty, as they deemed it was not possible to repair a differential leak simply by tightening the bolts, as it was a sealed unit. The manufacturer declined the claim on the basis the warranty had expired 14 months prior to receiving it.
The manufacturer also argued the consumer had failed to follow the advice of the repairer, and that the warranty required a defect to be identified within the period the policy was active. The manufacturer also advised the SUV had not been serviced in line with their recommended intervals, which was a requirement to make a claim.
The consumer did not agree with the findings, and requested that the differential unit was replaced at no cost to them – a repair estimated to cost around £1,000.
The case outcome:
As the case required a final decision due to the consumer not accepting the adjudication outcome, the ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided and explained the only relevant liability of the manufacturer was from the warranty and The Motor Ombudsman’s New Car Code. As such, he would be unable to comment on the actions of the dealership, other than where they were relevant to the manufacturer’s warranty.
The ombudsman noted that, irrespective of any COVID-19 concerns, the consumer had an obligation to service the vehicle as per the recommended intervals, and most repairers had protocols in place to minimise exposure to COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Additionally, the vehicle had also not been serviced prior to the onset of COVID-19 in 2020. The ombudsman therefore determined that the vehicle manufacturer was entitled to decline the consumer’s claim on this point alone.
In terms of whether tightening the bolts was an adequate step to take – a point contested by the consumer, the repairer recommended the consumer returned the vehicle within one month to determine whether the issue had been resolved. By ignoring the issue for an additional 17 months, the consumer undoubtedly caused further damage to the vehicle. Had the consumer simply followed the advice, they could have proceeded with the next steps in their warranty claim.
The manufacturer’s warranty equally required defects to be reported to an authorised repairer as soon as they are discovered. The ombudsman considered it was reasonable for the consumer to pursue advice about bringing their car back to the franchise repairer for a follow-up check to help resolve a potential issue. By failing to do this, the consumer had not complied with their obligations under warranty.
Conclusion:
The ombudsman concluded it was unreasonable for the consumer to not follow the repairer’s advice and still expect warranty coverage some 13 months after the warranty expired to replace affected components at no cost. As a result, no breach of the New Car Code had been identified, meaning the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
