The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a brand-new premium SUV from a dealership in July 2022, and began experiencing severe shaking and vibration issues within a few months of ownership. The vehicle was inspected by another franchised dealership, where the consumer was initially advised that the fault was likely related to the brakes. Acting on this advice, they agreed for the brake pads, discs and tyres to be replaced at their own expense.
Despite these repairs, the shaking persisted. Over time, the vehicle underwent further inspections and repairs at their local authorised dealership, which included the replacement of the rear differential, flywheel, and dual clutch transmission. However, the issue remained unsolved, and the consumer believed the vehicle was therefore suffering from a manufacturing defect.
The consumer also expressed dissatisfaction about the level of customer service received when addressing their concerns. They explained that communication from the business was poor, and updates were delayed, whilst they also experienced significant inconvenience due to repeated workshop visits and the lack of suitable courtesy vehicles. Frustrated by the ongoing issues and failed repair attempts, the consumer sought to reject the vehicle and requested a full refund valued at approximately £54,000.
The business declined this request, maintaining that the faults related to wear-and-tear components, had been repaired under the manufacturer’s warranty at no cost to the consumer.
The case outcome:
An adjudicator reviewed the complaint, and acknowledged that the vehicle had undergone multiple repair attempts for vibration-related concerns. The adjudicator noted that the issues first arose within a short period after purchase and that the burden rested on the business to demonstrate the vehicle was not inherently faulty at the point of sale.
However, the adjudicator also observed that the consumer had taken the vehicle to a local authorised repairer rather than returning it to the selling dealership. As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the selling dealership had not yet been given its statutory “one-shot” opportunity to inspect and repair the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The adjudicator therefore partially upheld the complaint and recommended that the consumer return the vehicle to the selling dealership for further inspection and diagnosis.
The consumer disagreed and maintained that the ongoing repairs demonstrated the vehicle was not fit for purpose. Therefore, the matter was escalated for an ombudsman to review the dispute.
After looking at the evidence provided by both parties, the ombudsman acknowledged that the vehicle had experienced repeated vibration-related issues, and that several significant components had been replaced. However, the available documentation did not demonstrate that the faults stemmed from an inherent manufacturing defect being present at the point of sale.
As a result, the ombudsman concluded that the identified faults related to components capable of deterioration through normal use, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the vehicle lacked reasonable durability under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Additionally, no evidence was provided to confirm that the same issue continued following the final repair work.
The ombudsman also found that the selling dealership had not been afforded the statutory opportunity to inspect or repair the vehicle themselves, as required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consequently, the request for rejection and refund was not upheld.
However, the ombudsman found that the level of customer service provided by the business fell below the standard expected under the Vehicle Sales Code. In particular, communication with the consumer was poor, updates were delayed, and the complaint handling process was inadequate.
Conclusion:
Although the consumer experienced repeated vibration-related issues and significant inconvenience, the evidence did not establish that the vehicle suffered from an inherent manufacturing defect or that the selling dealership had been provided with its statutory opportunity to inspect and repair the vehicle.
As a result, the consumer’s request for rejection and refund was not upheld. However, the complaint was partially upheld in relation to the standard of customer service provided, and the business was directed to issue the consumer with a formal written apology for the way in which the complaint had been handled.
Key learning point:
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the selling dealership must be given its statutory “one-shot” opportunity to inspect and repair a vehicle before a consumer can exercise the final right to reject, unless an exception applies. It is therefore important that consumers raise vehicle faults directly with the selling dealership to allow them the opportunity to diagnose and remedy any issues in the first instance.
Additionally, businesses should ensure complaints are handled with clear, timely, and proactive communication throughout the customer’s post-sale experience, as poor complaint handling can contribute significantly to consumer dissatisfaction.
