The consumer’s issue:
In July 2020, the consumer purchased a used ’66 plate SUV for around £20,000 from a franchise dealership. Around three and half years’ later, in January 2024, the vehicle broke down because of a failure of a known non-serviceable electrical component in the gearbox. As a result, they were unable to drive the vehicle.
The consumer raised a complaint with the manufacturer’s customer service department, and after five weeks of waiting for a response, the owner was informed that the manufacturer would not be able to cover the cost of replacing the mechatronic unit.
After waiting for around three months of not being able to use the SUV, the consumer proactively organised for the work to be carried out at an independent garage, and paid around £1,900 to get their car back on the road.
To resolve their dispute, the individual was looking to have this cost reimbursed by the dealer so that they were not left out of pocket.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that, as the defect was discovered more than six months after the purchase of the vehicle, the burden was on the consumer to prove that there was an inherent fault at the point of sale.
The adjudicator noted that the report from the independent garage showed that the mechatronic unit had suffered a failure, and the consideration here was whether this had occurred due to an existing issue, thereby rendering this component unsatisfactory.
The car had been serviced regularly, meaning the failure could not be attributed to anything the consumer had done, plus low mileage had been completed since they bought the car. The adjudicator therefore concluded that there must have been an underlying problem with the unit and, at seven years of age, and with only 34,000 miles on the clock, it was not reasonable to expect such a part to stop functioning at this point, thereby meaning the component and the vehicle were of unsatisfactory quality.
However, as the consumer had proceeded to have the repairs undertaken without giving the dealership the opportunity to address them in the first instance, and failed to reasonably mitigate their losses, the adjudicator explained that the consumer was therefore not entitled to be reimbursed for the full sum paid, and was awarded around £1,100 after deductions as a refund from the dealer.
Conclusion:
In summary, the consumer’s complaint was upheld in their favour with an award of a partial refund. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.
