The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased my 14-registration car in January 2015, and in November 2018, the vehicle broke down. The car was taken to a dealership, and they found that the engine had failed due to a camshaft issue. I believe this to be a manufacturing fault, which the manufacturer knew about, but had failed to tell me.
The dealership explained that I had not serviced the car within the franchise network, and would therefore not repair the vehicle. Instead, we had the car serviced at a specialist that was closer to home and have maintained it according to the required schedule. The vehicle has let us down with only 47,000 miles on the clock, and I would therefore like the dealership to fix the issue at no cost to me. Otherwise I will be left with a bill of £4,500.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer purchased the vehicle from us in January 2015, and in July 2015, the manufacturer issued a workshop action, which was not classed as a recall.
- This action is undertaken when a car is taken to a manufacturer-authorised repairer.
- As a manufacturer, we were made aware that this vehicle had a failure, and that one of our dealers have been trying to get authority from the customer to strip and assess the car.
- We advised the consumer that the specialist that undertakes the servicing of their vehicle was not aware of the workshop action.
- Therefore, due to a manufacturer-authorised repairer not being involved in these circumstances, we had no foresight that a service action would have been issued for the vehicle.
- We have looked to see, as a manufacturer, if we could offer any form of goodwill to the customer, but due to three years of ownership, and as the vehicle had not been taken to an authorised repairer where the service action would have been undertaken, the engine failure was not a direct consequence of the car being sold to the consumer, and therefore no contribution can be made towards the cost of the repair.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that, at the point of sale, the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault.
- The issue was unlikely to be present at the point of sale because of the time that passed between the purchase date and the occurrence of the fault.
- Had there been an issue outstanding at the point of sale, the adjudicator would have expected the fault to occur a lot sooner than it did.
- With all things considered, The Motor Ombudsman was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint.
Conclusion:
- The customer accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator and the case was closed.
