The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used ’65-plate hatchback from a dealership in December 2020. The day I bought the vehicle, it was raining, so I did not notice the small dents and scratches on the bodywork. The business agreed to let me get an estimate to repair the faults, but they felt the quote was too high. They therefore hired a firm to visit my home to do the work, but I was unhappy with this arrangement, as it was just a touch up and buff, meaning the dents and scratches are still there. In addition, I noticed the vehicle has rust forming underneath the previous touch up work. The rear light is also damaged, there is vibration when the car is in fourth gear, plus there is an issue with the transmission.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the business to absorb the full cost of the repairs to the vehicle.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer inspected the vehicle in person at the point of purchase before leaving our premises.
- We cannot confirm the exact date the consumer contacted us to raise his concerns about the bodywork and the rear lights.
- As a goodwill gesture, we ordered and paid for the replacement rear lights, and the consumer wanted to fit them themselves.
- We also sent a local company to rectify the minor bodywork issues, which were commensurate with the age and mileage of the vehicle.
- We can confirm we carried out smart repairs to the vehicle at the cost of £125 to prepare it for sale, and at the time, we identified works which require both mechanical and cosmetic remedy in keeping with a vehicle supplied by a franchised dealership.
- Considering the age of the vehicle, it cannot be expected to be presented in the same condition as one that is brand new.
- The quotation provided by the consumer consisted largely of stone chips repairs, which had already received the touch up treatment as a gesture of goodwill.
- We would not paint a panel as a remedy for a chip on a four to five-year-old vehicle, and neither would we carry out a full two-stage machine polish.
- In conclusion, the consumer had the opportunity to inspect the vehicle at the point of sale, and the goodwill gesture of supplying the rear lights, and completing the touch up and buff is more than fair and reasonable.
- Therefore, we are unable do anything more for the customer in this instance.
The adjudication outcome:
- When the consumer flagged an issue with the paintwork damage and the rear lights, the business rectified these issues at no cost to them.
- There was no evidence submitted by the consumer which showed they had raised the problem the gearbox within six months of purchase.
- However, the customer did not submit any evidence to demonstrate the vehicle was currently experiencing gearbox damage or that the cause was actually present at the point of sale. Therefore, the adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that the vehicle was supplied with transmission problems.
- There was equally no documentation supplied by the consumer to support the fact that a technician had assessed the paintwork touch-up repair work completed, that the previous touch-ups caused corrosion, or were not completed to a reasonable standard. As a result, the adjudicator could uphold the consumer’s claim that the body repair work was not completed to a reasonable standard or that it had caused further damage to the vehicle.
- In summary, it was found that the Vehicle Sales Code had not been breached by the business, meaning no award could be made to the consumer.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer failed to provide a response to the decision. As a result, the case was closed.
