The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a vehicle, and was very happy with until I was involved in an accident where somebody hit the rear near side wheel arch of the car. My insurer informed me that the repairing garage had said my vehicle had been involved in an accident before, and as it had already been rectified, but not to the required standard (I thought it was acceptable), the insurer would not repair the damage from the latest accident. They claimed this was because they wouldn’t be able to meet the correct specification. The car was therefore taken back to the seller who carried out an independent inspection and confirmed the damage, and that there was a repair prior to when the retailer bought it. The near side doors were also found to be badly aligned and there was poor bodywork preparation causing a mismatch of the colour of the panels.
Furthermore, I paid £9,500 for the car, plus a further £1,000 for the protective coating, and believed it to be in optimum condition. I do not hold the seller accountable for the damage, as both they and I bought the car in good faith. However, the dealer should have done more to resolve this issue, either by making good the car, offering a replacement, or doing something of this sort. They have nevertheless offered no remedy apart from supplying quotes for even more repairs.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have looked into the issue, and we feel that the customer has come to us to buy a used car, and at that point, they have viewed the vehicle and agreed to purchase it.
- They had the chance to see the bodywork before placing their deposit and buying the car.
- We have supplied the Accident Damage Appraisal and additional photos for the completed inspection, and we understand that the consumer also has a copy of the report.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the facts as follows:
– The consumer is alleging that the vehicle is in breach of contract due to damage unbeknownst to either party present before the point of sale. Under this, they are asking for a remedy under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
– The business’ reply infers that they will rely on the principle under the Consumer Rights Act of reasonable inspection of the goods prior to taking delivery, and that the good’s quality under the CRA is commensurate with the defining qualities of the goods (i.e. age, mileage, and price paid).
- The adjudicator viewed the photographs in order to consider if there was sufficient evidence to consider either of these assertions over the other.
- The adjudicator noted that the alignment issues would likely not be reasonable to expect a consumer to note. It was therefore not reasonable to say they accepted the car fully knowing its condition.
- The adjudicator did not agree that the damage is commensurate with what at that time was a four year old vehicle, and not all four year old vehicles have colour match and alignment issues.
- Some may have alignment problems if they have been involved in minor scrapes and knocks, and that the expectation is not the same as a new car.
- However, the adjudicator felt that the expectation was reasonable to expect any damage to be in a reasonable state of repair.
- The adjudicator considered that the professional evidence provided asserts the repair is not to a sufficient standard.
- The adjudicator therefore ruled in the consumer’s favour, and that as a remedy, the appropriate action would be for the seller to undertake a colour match on the appropriate panels and that the doors are realigned to a suitable spacing.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the resolution as suggested by the adjudicator and the case was closed.
