The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a 12-plate supermini from a dealership in March 2018, but just before Christmas 2019, the car broke down with 50,000 miles on the clock. When it was recovered, I was told the spark plug had blown out of the engine and smashed the coil. I contacted the seller, but was informed that the car was out of warranty so they could not do anything to help. I therefore contacted the manufacturer, and they said that I needed to take it one of their franchise dealers for an inspection. I did just this, and after looking at the car, they said that spark plug number two could not be inserted correctly, and that the hole would need to be re-drilled. The manufacturer did not accept any liability either for the fault, and said that it would cost me £3,000 to replace the cylinder head. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for car to be repaired free-of-charge so that it works properly, and to be compensated for the cost of the hire car that I have been paying for.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We do not accept that the customer is entitled to a free of charge repair or to any compensation (including hire vehicle charges) under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA 2015”), or any other term or law, on the basis it was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose when the car was sold.
- We have reached this conclusion on the basis that, prior to sale, the vehicle was prepared to a reasonable standard that may be expected from a dealership.
- The consumer did also not raise any concerns with the vehicle until 21 months post-delivery, during which time they covered around 18,000 miles. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the issue was present at the point of sale.
- We also offered for the customer’s vehicle to be inspected, but they declined this opportunity.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence, but it did not demonstrate that, at the point of sale, the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault.
- Since the issue was reported more than six months after the purchase of the vehicle, the customer had the responsibility to prove the reported fault was present at the point of sale.
- The consumer specifically stated that the fault was due to poor craftsmanship, and was the result of a manufacturing defect.
- Whilst the adjudicator understood the customer’s complaint, they had failed to provide any documentation supporting their claims.
- As a result, there was no apparent breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, meaning the complaint could not be upheld in this instance.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer failed to respond to the decision, thereby closing the case.
