The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a used 11-plate saloon for £24,000 from a dealership in October 2012 (registered in March 2011). The car came with a 12-year anti-perforation warranty at the point of sale (i.e. valid until March 2023), and the consumer reported four areas of corrosion on their vehicle to a franchise dealership in February 2023 before the agreement expired.
Believing that the corrosion was covered under the terms of the policy, a claim was made to the vehicle manufacturer to have the repair carried out under warranty, but this was declined because it was considered by the manufacturer to be ‘edge and fold’ corrosion following an inspection by the dealership. However, as a goodwill gesture, the manufacturer offered a 70% contribution towards the quoted cost of repair of around £1,400, meaning the consumer would be liable for the remaining portion.
The consumer was not in agreement with this decision, as they stated that the warranty terms within the vehicle handbook contained no specific exclusion to ‘edge and fold’ corrosion, and reiterated that the full cost should be borne by the manufacturer as a resolution. This was compounded by the fact that the dealership was unable to provide a copy of the inspection report as they stated it belonged to the manufacturer.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the terms of the policy, as well as the photos provided by the consumer. The evidence showed that the corrosion was on the edge of the bodywork of the car, meaning this was surface corrosion and not caused by corrosion from the inner cavities of the bodywork, meaning this was not covered under the terms of the policy. The adjudicator added that paintwork concerns would have been covered by the manufacturer’s three-year warranty in relation to this area, but this had long expired, so could not be referred to.
In conclusion, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint, and recommended that the consumer accepts the goodwill gesture offered by the manufacturer.
Although the manufacturer agreed with the findings, the consumer however, disagreed with the adjudication outcome, and requested for the case to be reviewed by an ombudsman. Upon reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator, and explained that the corrosion was more likely to have been caused by external factors, and did therefore not meet the terms of the 12-year anti-perforation warranty, as it was not caused by a manufacturing defect from the inner cavity of the bodywork.
Conclusion:
As a result of the evidence presented, and in the absence of any report provided by the consumer as to the cause of the corrosion, the complaint was not upheld by the ombudsman, and they also recommended that the consumer accepted the goodwill gesture.
Key learning points:
An early explanation from a business about why a claim has been declined can help consumers understand what is covered under the terms of a warranty. A report from the technician who inspected the car explaining what caused the corrosion could have prevented the complaint being passed to The Motor Ombudsman.
In these cases, The Motor Ombudsman will usually want to see:
1. A copy of the warranty document;
2. A copy of the report from the technician who inspected the car. This should provide an opinion about the cause of the issue; and
3. The final response from the business. This should include reference to the evidence considered, and an explanation about why a claim has been declined.
