The consumer’s issue:

The consumer purchased a brand-new hybrid hatchback from a dealership for around £22,000. On collecting the vehicle, the customer noticed a dent in the wheel arch, and notified the sales executive immediately, who explained that it would be repaired. However, the rest of the car was not inspected due to the vehicle being new, but on arriving home, the new owner saw damage to the bumper.

Due to it being too late in the day, the customer notified the business about this a few days’ later and, following a smart repair which did not resolve the issue completely, the bumper was replaced. The wheel arch was nevertheless left with a small pin prick dent after a repair, much to the dissatisfaction of the consumer.

In light of what had happened, the consumer was ideally looking for a replacement like-for-like vehicle, but the customer was informed that they could have another model costing nearly £50 extra per month, which they could not afford.

The dealership had also offered a free first-year service, as well as the repair of the wheel arch at no cost, which the consumer subsequently accepted as a resolution to their dispute.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and noted that the consumer and business agreed that imperfections remained in the wheel arch panel, but were subsequently repaired at no cost, as this was the consumer’s preferred option to resolve the matter in hand.

The adjudicator also remarked that the business had not heard from the customer since this was undertaken, which assumes that the work was to the consumer’s satisfaction, and that the issue had not re-occurred.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that, if a fault occurs after the point of sale, a business should be given “one-shot” to repair the vehicle. If the fault was to re-occur, the customer would be entitled to reject the vehicle for a refund.

The adjudicator stated that, following the repair work, there was no further evidence that would reasonably indicate the vehicle still suffered from the same fault or that it had returned.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts of the case, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint as no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code was apparent, and the case was closed.