The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a brand-new ’69-plate vehicle from a franchise dealership in November 2019, and reported an issue with a misaligned tailgate within the first month of ownership.
The retailer subsequently attempted to repair the issue multiple times, but the misalignment persisted and worsened, leaving a significant gap and causing the door to catch. In July 2022, when the warranty was nearing expiry, the customer was told that there was nothing more they could do, and would need to speak to the manufacturer as it was a build defect, which they subsequently acknowledged.
However, the manufacturer would not take any responsibility for the repairs conducted by the dealer, which the consumer claimed had made the issue worse, and left them without a resolution. The consumer also explained that they were not made aware of the need to report any issues directly to the manufacturer within two months of purchasing the car within the car’s handover documents, just that the warranty was for 36 months.
Frustrated at the level of service received from the dealer and manufacturer during a three-year period, the consumer was looking for the problem to be resolved quickly. This was particularly pertinent because, by this point, the tailgate door had dropped down further, making contact with the rear bumper, and raised the risk of glass smashing and causing injury.
The case outcome:
An adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and remarked that a term in the manufacturer’s warranty stated that “adjustments”, including “openings”, such as doors and hatches, were covered only within the first two months of ownership or 2,000 miles. Therefore, based on this condition, they did not uphold the decision in the consumer’s favour. However, the customer disagreed, and sought an ombudsman’s final decision.
The ombudsman looked at the case, and concluded that the consumer had followed the correct warranty process by reporting the fault promptly to an approved franchise dealer while the manufacturer’s policy was still valid.
Furthermore, given repeated unsuccessful repair attempts, the ombudsman stated that the problem appeared to be more than a minor post-delivery adjustment, and was consistent with a manufacturing defect.
Additionally, the ombudsman considered that the business’s reliance on the two-month/2,000‑mile adjustment exclusion was not relevant or appropriate in this case, as this clause was geared more for defects that arose in the first weeks of ownership, and the warranty also did not state that a defect stops being covered simply because an initial repair attempt was unsuccessful.
Conclusion:
Because the consumer logged the fault swiftly through an approved network dealer during the warranty period, and the evidence indicated an underlying defect rather than a minor adjustment issue, the complaint was upheld and the business was directed to fund the necessary repairs under the manufacturer’s warranty.
Key learning point:
It is important that, in the event of a claim by a consumer, warranty terms are applied reasonably and appropriately according to the issue(s) being presented to help avoid claims being turned down incorrectly and promoting consumer dissatisfaction.
