The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand-new hatchback from the dealership in December 2017, and around five years’ later, in August 2022, I noticed that the metallic paintwork had started to crack on the bonnet. The vehicle was regularly cleaned and maintained in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations, and had only covered around 22,000 miles at the time. Therefore, this can only be put down to a manufacturing defect, as the issue occurred within just five years of ownership.
When I purchased the vehicle, I also took out the manufacturer’s paint warranty, but I was not made aware this was only valid for a period of three years. However, I believe that my consumer rights still apply under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as I do not believe the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale. The vehicle was also sold to me at a premium price, and the metallic paintwork was an added extra, and was told that this would prolong the durability of the bodywork.
The dealership did carry out a cursory inspection of the bonnet, but refused to admit this was a manufacturing defect, and said that the problem resulted from external influence. As a result, they are not making any contribution towards the remedial paint works required, namely respraying the bonnet, which was quoted at a cost of over £1,000. I believe however, that I am entitled to a free of charge repair to resolve my complaint.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer took their complaint directly to the vehicle manufacturer in August 2022, before bringing it to our attention a month later.
- The manufacturer concluded that the damage reported was caused by external influence, and not a manufacturing defect covered by the warranty.
- In September 2022, our service director arranged for our bodyshop manager to make an in-person visit to the customer to inspect the vehicle. The bodyshop manager also found that the damage was caused by either an external influence or some type of external contamination.
- A quote for repair was provided, which amounted to £1,035.70, inclusive of parts and labour. We did not deem this to be a manufacturing defect, as we felt that there would have been corrosion across the bonnet if this was the case.
- When inspecting the vehicle, we found that it was not being kept in the best condition, or location, and believed this to be the reason why the vehicle’s paintwork was damaged.
- Furthermore, the customer’s vehicle only came with a three-year paint warranty, which would have expired in December 2020, as the vehicle was purchased and registered in December 2017. This means that the paintwork issue would not have been covered by this policy, had it been deemed a warrantable fault.
- In addition, paintwork manufacturing defects that occur after a five-year period are extremely rare, and are more likely to have been caused by external influence, such as bird lime or stone chips.
- The vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale, and there was nothing to suggest that a fault was either present or developing at this time.
- As a result, we will not be upholding this complaint, and we remain happy to repair the vehicle, should the customer approve the quoted cost.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under the Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator stated that the business had an obligation to ensure that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described at the point of sale.
- The issue with the paintwork occurred nearly five years after the consumer had bought the vehicle. The Consumer Rights Act stipulates that, if a fault occurs outside of the first six months of purchase, the consumer has the evidential burden of demonstrating that the fault would have been inherent and present at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator stated that they agreed with the dealership’s perspective, that the damage was most likely associated with the age of the vehicle.
- It was also noted that the consumer did provide any substantive evidence, such as a professional opinion, which confirmed the cause of the problem. Whilst a repair estimate had been provided, this did not provide a conclusion of how the damage occurred.
- The adjudicator did review the correspondence provided by the manufacturer, as well as photographic evidence showing damage on the bonnet of the vehicle.
- However, as both the dealership’s bodyshop manager and the manufacturer both found the damage to have been caused by an outside influence, the adjudicator felt this evidence was weighted in the dealership’s favour. The adjudicator did not believe that the consumer had demonstrated that the paintwork issue was either a manufacturing defect, or an inherent fault present at the point of sale, even though it had occurred after 22,000 miles on the clock.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business was in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.
