The consumer’s issue:
“In November 2019, I visited a dealership to test drive a used 17-plate hatchback. When I got there, the car would not start, but after a boost, it worked absolutely fine. I was therefore able to drive the car and decided to buy it. However, three days later, I went to collect the vehicle from the business, but again, it would not start.
Since then, I have had to take the vehicle back to the dealership at least five times, and have made numerous phone calls. The battery was also replaced three times before the issue was eventually sorted. Even after all this, I believe there are still some issues with the car and, as a result, I have lost all faith in both the car and the dealership. As this vehicle is not of satisfactory quality, I am looking to reject it as a resolution to my complaint.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Our investigation found no issue with the battery, but in fact, a fault was found with the battery control module.
- Once this was discovered, the module was immediately replaced, and there was no other ongoing issue with the start/stop system, which the customer made us aware of when first logging their complaint.
- The consumer subsequently visited the dealership for servicing and an MOT, and did not raise any ongoing faults with the vehicle.
- The finance company also inspected the vehicle, and appeared satisfied with our actions to ensure we had complied with the terms of the Consumer Rights Act.
- Whilst we appreciate there was a concern with the vehicle following its purchase, we have taken the correct actions to deal with the issues as quickly as possible, and all repairs were subsequently authorised by them.
- As a result, we cannot accept the customer’s request to reject the vehicle as a resolution to their complaint.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the evidence showed that the consumer’s vehicle suffered from an inherent fault at the point of sale. This meant that it was the responsibility of the business to demonstrate otherwise when the customer purchased the car.
- However, the response provided by the dealership indicated that there were faults at the point of sale.
- However, as repairs were made to the car, it could therefore be considered to be of satisfactory quality, as should be expected at the point of sale, meaning the customer was not able to reject the vehicle.
- Whilst it was acknowledged that the consumer had lost faith in the car, it was noted by the adjudicator that the vehicle had passed its MOT and there were no other existing faults.
- The adjudicator did note that the cost of replacing the battery control module was billed to the consumer, but under the Consumer Rights Act, this should have been completed at no charge.
- Therefore, as a result, the adjudicator recommended a refund of £91.60 to cover this.
Conclusion:
- Both the consumer and the business accepted the outcome, and the business agreed to refund the consumer as advised. The case was closed.
