The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used ’65-plate SUV for my son as a gift on 21st December 2018. Two months later, on 17th February 2019, the rev counter became erratic when my son was driving on the motorway. He tried to slow down, and move to a lower gear, but the clutch wouldn’t work. The recovery service was therefore called to take him home, and the following day, I rang the seller of the car, but they stated that, as it had been more than 30 days since buying the car, they had no obligation to get involved. However, they agreed for the vehicle to be recovered to another dealership, and I asked the seller to tell them that my son had only had the car for eight weeks, and only 5,000 miles has been completed since the purchase date, but they were not told about this.
I was informed by the second business that my son would have to pay £480 for the car to be inspected as the clutch was not covered under the warranty, and we agreed to this. They found that the clutch was burnt-out and that it would cost £1,780 to repair. As a result, I contacted the manufacturer, and they agreed to cover 75% of the cost of parts, as they acknowledged that the issue should not have occurred so soon. They also asked the seller to contribute towards the cost of labour, but they refused. When speaking to the second dealership, their health check said that they would also recommend changing two tyres.
To resolve this dispute, I am looking for the seller to pay for a full service and two new tyres (costing the equivalent of £1,240), as the checks should have been done pre-sale, and the tyres should have lasted more than 5,000 miles.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer bought the car from us, and at the time of sale, it was just over three years old with around 28,050 miles on the clock.
- The vehicle had been subject to an 84-point check and MOT, and was sold with a minimum of 3mm of tread on the tyres.
- This was consistent with the health check carried out 5,000 miles later by the second business, where the tyres had a tread of 2.5mm and 3.2mm.
- Unfortunately, there is no upper limit as to how long tyres should last for, as it depends on driving style and make of tyres.
- We are therefore unable to cover the cost of replacing the two tyres or a contribution towards the work on the clutch, as the customer had driven 5,000 miles before experiencing a concern with the clutch, and the tyres were still in excess of the legal limit when the vehicle was sold to the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- To come to their decision, The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudicator took into account the car was over three years old, and had covered more than 28,000 miles when sold. It was presumed, as the issues occurred within six months, they were present at the point of sale, though clutches and tyres wear over time.
- Therefore, taking into account the car’s age, the mileage covered following the purchase, and the components being wear and tear items, the adjudicator did not believe that the car was of unsatisfactory quality when it was sold.
- With the tyres having a tread of 2.5mm and 3.2mm at the health check, the adjudicator concluded that the tyres were above 3mm when sold, and before the car had travelled 5,000 miles.
- The car was believed to have been of satisfactory quality when sold, and the consumer’s complaint was not upheld.
Conclusion:
- Neither the business nor the consumer challenged the decision made by the adjudicator, and the case was closed.
