The consumer’s issue:
“When I purchased my car, I spent £299 on alloy wheel insurance. I tried to make a claim under the policy, but was told by the insurer that no agreement had been activated, so I was unable to claim. The dealer then set up the policy backdating it to the sale date to try and claim under it, meaning I had lost eight months of insurance that I had paid for.
A year later, I had to claim under the policy again for a repair, but was informed that this had been declined due to a faulty repair by the dealer the last time around. The business therefore repaired the wheels, cancelled the policy and refunded the cost of the agreement in full. However, this left me without the insurance that was vital to my purchase decision from the outset.
Now my wheels are deteriorating again and the dealer refused to accept liability, because they said that my policy had ended when I received the refund. I am therefore looking for the repairs to be covered at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The alloy wheel plan was not set up correctly, and we therefore covered the cost of the alloy wheel refurbishment.
- We then set up and paid for the alloy wheel cover and backdated it accordingly so that the consumer was not out of pocket by eight months. The cost of the second repair was also covered by us.
- The policy was cancelled at the consumer’s request, and they were reimbursed in full. We therefore do not have the responsibility to continue to repair the wheels, and there is also no longer any insurance set up to cover the cost of the repairs.
- Our business has changed hands since the consumer purchased the car, and we are over two years down the road under the new ownership and, as a result, we deem our responsibility to have ended when we carried out the second repair, and since the customer chose to cancel the alloy wheel policy.
- Nevertheless, we are prepared to contribute £100 towards any further repairs as a final goodwill gesture.
The adjudication outcome:
- The means by which the company acquired the previous selling business were of relevance to The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator, as it determined, whether in law, the liabilities of the previous company’s actions extended to the current business.
- The adjudicator commented that, unless there was evidence of the liabilities being excluded in the acquisition, it was presumed that these terms would be adopted in the purchase process.
- This means that the dealer must be considered as if they were the original retailer, and absorb the liability for their work and their actions in the sale.
- There was a difference of opinion as to who cancelled the policy, as it’s in the consumer’s name and is a contract between them and a third party.
- The adjudicator noted they would not consider the retailer as having the right or ability to cancel the product unless they saw terms or evidence to the contrary. It was considered more likely the consumer cancelled the policy and received the cancellation benefit they were due.
- However, if the current issues with the alloys were due to the quality of repair by the dealer, as before, then the business would still be liable under The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
- What needed to be determined was whether in a professional’s opinion that delamination or peeling on the alloy was due to the workmanship itself or any other cause, and an independent report was requested from the consumer.
- Without evidence demonstrating that the standard of the repair was the cause, the adjudicator did not have the ability to award in the consumer’s favour other than in principle.
- However, the violation of the Code of Practice was logged by the Ombudsman for its compliance team.
Conclusion:
- The consumer provided the professional opinion sought by The Motor Ombudsman, and the repair was carried out at no cost to the customer, and any costs associated with that report were also refunded to the customer.
