The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new SUV from a dealership in 2018, and within 18 months, the lacquer finish to the wheels has badly blistered and deteriorated. I took the vehicle to our local dealer for them to inspect the wheels, and they said it was due to stone chips and wear and tear. The vehicle has only done 11,500 miles and has never been driven off road.
I also contacted the vehicle manufacturer, and they also said that the issue was due to stone chips, but I am disputing this because I don’t think that a lacquer finish should deteriorate in such a short space of time, and I consider this to be a manufacturing defect if the lacquer has not been applied correctly in the factory.
We have looked at a number of other models of the same make that have completed between 20,000 to 30,000 miles, and these vehicles that have different surface finishes are in a much better condition. I am therefore looking for the wheels to be repaired or replaced at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We spoke to the dealership in relation to the consumer’s alloy wheels, and they advised that the issue has been caused by stone chips rather than a manufacturing defect.
- Our obligation as a manufacturer is to repair or replace any part of a vehicle which fails as a result of a manufacturing defect whilst it’s within the warranty period, at no cost to the customer.
- As the problem with the alloy wheels is the result of wear and tear, the repair is not covered under the vehicle’s warranty, and on this occasion, we are unable to provide a financial contribution to any work.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator remarked that the damage to the alloy wheels was due to external influences and not a manufacturing defect.
- Looking at the age of the vehicle, the adjudicator could understand why the consumer was looking for the repair to be covered under warranty, as it did seem premature to them that the lacquer was deteriorating so early on.
- However, for the complaint to be upheld in the consumer’s favour, The Motor Ombudsman would need technical evidence to demonstrate a manufacturing defect, and a customer experiencing similar issues could not be accepted as proof.
- Based on the current information provided, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the customer’s complaint, but advised the consumer to obtain an independent technical report if they deemed the issue to be a manufacturing fault.
- Should the findings provide proof of this, the adjudicator would then be able to reconsider their decision and ask the manufacturer to refund the cost of the report.
Conclusion:
- The accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator. The customer was unhappy, but accepted the outcome and did not lodge an appeal. The case was therefore closed.
