The consumer’s issue:
The customer purchased a used ’71-plate electric SUV for around £24,500 from a franchise dealership in August 2025, and complained that after driving around 500 miles, one of the tyres blew out causing a safety risk. The customer stated that it was likely that pre-sales checks were not carried out correctly, resulting in a hazard the retailer subsequently acknowledged.
In light of what had happened, the customer believed the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale, and the business was in breach of the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) 2015, meaning they deemed the dealership to be responsible for the full cost of the repairs. The consumer’s complaint also related to the level of customer service received from the dealership, as they said they stopped responding after agreeing to reimburse them.
In response, the dealership stated that the customer had contacted them almost one month after purchase to complain about the condition of the tyre and the wheel alignment, but did not give them an opportunity to investigate. As the customer had repaired the vehicle at a cost of £245, but was unable to supply an invoice from a VAT registered garage, the dealership refused to offer goodwill for the tyre replacement, but reimbursed the cost of the wheel alignment.
As a resolution to their dispute, the customer requested the dealership reimbursed the entire cost of the repairs, as they had acted in breach of the CRA 2015 from their point of view. There was also a request for a further £200 of compensation for the stress caused and the time taken to resolve the issue.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and noted that while the fault happened within the first six months of purchase, a tyre is a wear and tear component subject to external influences.
As this is the case, the adjudicator explained that the customer would have to show that the tyre was defective from the point of sale. As they did not provide any evidence to confirm that the tyre was worn or damaged before they purchased the vehicle, the adjudicator could not uphold this element of the consumer’s complaint.
As the cost of the wheel alignment had already been reimbursed, the adjudicator did not investigate this further, but as a wheel can go out of balance from hitting a pothole, this would also not have been upheld if considered. There was no evidence of the customer service failing, meaning the adjudicator could neither make an award for this this part of the dispute.
The adjudicator equally explained that The Motor Ombudsman is unable to consider compensation as a remedy for losses that cannot be quantified.
Conclusion:
In summary, the customer’s complaint was not upheld in its entirety, and no awards were made. However, the adjudicator acknowledged the goodwill gesture made by the business in reimbursing the cost of the wheel alignment.
Key learning point:
Generally, where a defect is found within the first six months of purchase, it is assumed to have been present at the point of sale and the business would have to show that it was not.
However, if, as in this case, the part is subject to wear and tear, the customer would have to demonstrate that the defect was likely present at the point of sale. It is also important to highlight that the seller should be given the opportunity to investigate the fault unless there is permission to take the vehicle to another business.
