AdBlue cover damage

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a new van in 2017, and a year later, I noticed the AdBlue cover had become loose and the fixings had broken. Because the cover is fixed to the AdBlue tank, I had to have the whole tank replaced. However, the seller won’t cover the cost of replacing this under warranty. This is clearly a design flaw, because although they’ve said the damage is due to external influences, there is no sign of damage to the cover”.

The accredited business’ response:

  • We explained to the consumer that the dealership had looked at the damage and advised that the damage to the cover had been caused by external influences and was therefore not covered under our warranty.
  • As the consumer was a loyal customer, we offered to cover 50% of the cost of the repair to the AdBlue tank as a goodwill gesture.

The adjudication outcome:

  • Based on the evidence provided, the adjudicator didn’t uphold the customer’s complaint.
  • This is because the business is only obliged to cover the cost of repairs for faults or damage caused by a manufacturing defect.
  • As there was no evidence of one, their offer of goodwill was considered to be a fair remedy in this case.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • After reviewing the case, the ombudsman also agreed with the adjudication outcome and did not rule in the customer’s favour.
  • This is because she said the consumer hadn’t supplied any photographic evidence to support their claim that there was no damage to the cover.
  • The ombudsman also noted the consumer had acknowledged that there was a possibility that damage to the cover may have been caused due to driving over heavy snow or drag from a puddle. Therefore, this is deemed to be an external influence and not the result of a manufacturing defect.
  • The ombudsman also noted the consumer’s comments about the durability of the cover and it being a design flaw.
  • However, there was no sales contract in place between the business and consumer, which meant that the quality of the van and part couldn’t be taken into consideration.

Conclusion:

  • Both parties agreed with the ombudsman’s final decision and the case was closed.