The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new diesel campervan in February 2019. In September 2019, within the first six months of ownership, I noticed that the AdBlue wires were made from plant-based materials rather than traditional oil-based ones. This has made them a target for rodent attacks, and has cost me £1,050 in repairs by a third-party garage to rectify the damage, for what is a known defect. There is a protective part that is made and fitted abroad by the manufacturer at no cost to vehicle owners, but the seller has said that it doesn’t recognise it as a valid component for the UK market, and would therefore be unable to fit it.
I made a complaint in light of what had happened, and was offered a contribution of £250 towards the cost of the repairs by the manufacturer. However, I don’t feel that this is acceptable, as I do not believe that having wiring that is attractive to rodents, is suitable for use in a vehicle, which is often used in rural areas, and has the potential to be left unattended for periods when not in use. As a resolution to my dispute, I am looking for the full cost of the repairs to be covered so that I am not left out of pocket.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer requested for the rectification work they paid for at another garage to be reimbursed, and / or for the part that is available abroad to be fitted to help stop the same issue happening again.
- In response, both we and the vehicle manufacturer explained that this component was not available in the UK, and never has been.
- The consumer remained adamant that the part should be brought in from abroad to be fitted to their vehicle, but no further action could be taken on this.
- The manufacturer has therefore closed the customer’s case, as no more could be done in the circumstances.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties, and without any technical opinion to the contrary, he was of the view that the vehicle’s AdBlue wires being made of a plant-based material was, on the balance of probabilities, not a defect in the sense considered under the Consumer Rights Act.
- Therefore, according to the adjudicator’s understanding, there was no mechanical defect within the vehicle.
- However, the consumer pointed out that the material that the AdBlue wires were made of, was more attractive to rodents than the oil-based equivalent.
- Nevertheless, in the adjudicator’s opinion, even when a vehicle’s components are not made from plant-based materials, they can still be the target of rodent attacks.
- In conclusion, the issue was more akin to force majeure due to an external influence, rather than a defect being present within the vehicle.
- Consequently, no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code was found, and the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint in their favour.
- The consumer rejected the outcome, and requested a final decision from the ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- Having considered the evidence provided by both parties, it seemed universally accepted that the way in which the vehicle was designed, meant it was particularly vulnerable to rodent attacks due to the materials used.
- As such, the question then became whether this on its own was sufficient to render the vehicle as being of unsatisfactory quality or unfit for purpose.
- On this point, the ombudsman noted and accepted that plant-based materials are commonly used in vehicles, and in most cases, do not cause any issues.
- However, the ombudsman stated the situation with this particular vehicle (a campervan) should be distinguished from other vehicles, in that its use is very different from one that a consumer may use every day i.e. they are commonly found in rural locations and / or are left unattended for some time.
- In light of this, the ombudsman stated that the use of materials that would make vehicles, such as this one, more vulnerable to rodent attacks, would be sufficient to class the vehicle as being of unsatisfactory quality or unfit for the purpose it would commonly be used for.
- Therefore, the ombudsman needed to consider the most appropriate remedy in resolution of the complaint.
- When raising their complaint, the ombudsman noted that the consumer had stated that they had been quoted £1,050 to repair the damage caused by a rodent attack, and the business had only agreed a £250 contribution.
- Based on his review of the evidence, the ombudsman stated that the business should look to provide the full £1,050 in recognition that the materials used on the consumer’s vehicle were not suitable.
- In addition to this, the ombudsman noted that the consumer had stated that they would expect the business to fit the part made by the manufacturer abroad, to prevent this issue happening again in the future.
- However, in response, the business stated that this component was not recognised in the UK. As a result, the ombudsman did not deem it appropriate to expect the business to fit a part that was not recognised within the UK market.
- However, it was clear that, even after the repairs had been completed, the consumer’s vehicle would remain vulnerable to ongoing rodent attacks due to this issue.
- Additionally, there was no evidence to demonstrate the exact frequency with which this problem would re-occur, so the ombudsman was unable to speculate as to if and when the consumer would likely be faced with a similar situation in the future.
- However, he stated that it was likely that the consumer would need to have the same work completed again in the future, and therefore recommended that the business should either take steps to mitigate the chances of this happening by fitting the part produced in Germany, or agree to cover any costs that do arise due to this issue, up to the point that the vehicle had completed 100,000 miles (i.e. before the vehicle would start to require regular repairs / maintenance).
- Following this, the business questioned this on the basis that the rodent damage was not a “known issue”, meaning the consumer took the same risk as every other motorist when deciding where to park their vehicle.
- However, the ombudsman considered that it had been suitably demonstrated that this was a known issue, as the evidence suggested that it impacted many manufacturers, and a part had been produced to tackle the issue abroad.
- As such, the ombudsman re-iterated that the materials used on the consumer’s vehicle, while suitable for most vehicles, rendered the consumer’s particular vehicle as being of unsatisfactory quality or not fit for its common purpose.
- On this basis, and in the absence of any further evidence, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
