The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a used family hatchback from a dealership for around £15,000. Six months after purchase, the vehicle owner noticed that there was rust appearing on the car’s roof with evidence of bubbling paint, which they said was an indication of it forming from the inside out.
The consumer therefore made a claim, along with photos of the affected areas, under the manufacturer’s 12-year structural corrosion warranty that came with the car. They believed the repair would be covered, as the terms of the policy stated that the roof was a ‘specific panel’.
The vehicle manufacturer rejected the request, explaining that the cause of the problem was due to surface corrosion and not anti-perforation, as it had not appeared from the inside out, but was purely on the surface. Therefore, this was put down to external factors.
As the consumer deemed the hatchback, that was only five years’ old at the time, to be of unsatisfactory quality, the consumer was looking for the repairs to be carried out at no cost as a fair resolution to their dispute.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that the photos only showed paint bubbling with no evident external damage around the area, and similarly, the technician’s report did not diagnose the cause of the fault.
In addition, the issue was investigated in relation to the expired three-year paint warranty, and not the 12-year structural corrosion warranty. Therefore, the adjudicator considered that the warranty repair to the roof should be covered by the manufacturer.
In terms of deeming the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality, the adjudicator suggested that they may wish to raise a complaint against the seller.
The business disagreed with this outcome, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision, as they considered the issue to have been caused by external influences.
The ombudsman reviewed the photographs provided and confirmed there was bubbling on the roof panel. However, what she noted was that the bubbling appeared to be concentrated along the edge of the panel rather than originating from a clearly identifiable perforation within the metal itself.
The ombudsman therefore concluded that the location and presentation of the bubbling was more consistent with external contamination, such as small stones, road debris, or dirt, which became trapped at the panel edge, rather than it being corrosion that progressed from within the panel structure.
The manufacturer in this case also concluded that the bubbling was not perforation corrosion. Therefore, the ombudsman said that, if the customer disagreed with this, then they would need to provide an alternative technical opinion that explained why it was indeed perforation corrosion, and should therefore be covered under the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty terms.
Conclusion:
Based on the ombudsman’s findings, the complaint was not upheld in favour of the consumer, and no breach of the New Car Code was found. As a result, no award was due to the vehicle owner. The case was closed.
