Catalytic converter theft

The consumer’s issue:

“I previously had a vehicle stolen, and therefore wanted a car that was safe and secure. I bought a used 17-plate hatchback from a dealership in December 2020, but at the point of purchase, I was not advised that this make and model was at high risk of component theft, and l believe that this information was withheld to secure the sale.

Subsequently, after I took ownership of the car, the catalytic converter was stolen. When I asked the business why they did not advise me of the additional security measures available to safeguard this part from theft, I was told that they had no obligation to have this discussion with me. However, I also found out that the manufacturer had written to their franchise dealerships to advise them to warn potential buyers about the high chance of component theft.

As I believe I have been misled, I am looking for either a full refund of the amount I paid for the vehicle, or a reasonable price to change to another car. However, I am being offered a price for mine that’s considerably lower than what I bought it for just three months ago.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We were notified by the consumer about the theft of their car’s catalytic converter in March 2021, and they said that they wanted to exchange their hatchback for another car that was not at such a high risk of component theft.
  • We were happy to discuss this with the customer, and they identified an alternative vehicle for sale on our forecourt. We offered the highest possible industry trade-in value for their hatchback at the time, plus a discount on the sale price of the new car.
  • Alternatively, if the customer did not wish to purchase another vehicle, we said that we would fit a catalytic lock worth £300 free of charge to their existing car, as a goodwill gesture.
  • However, it then became apparent that they were looking for some form of compensation in relation to the theft of the catalytic converter, and at this stage, the customer contacted the manufacturer.
  • Our response to the customer, as agreed with the vehicle manufacturer, in relation to the compensation claim, was that the theft issue was not to do with the vehicle manufacturer or the design of the vehicle, and that we were not obliged to discuss the risk of catalytic convertors being stolen.
  • We did not deliberately withhold this information from the customer, and have sold many cars of the same make and model with no issues.
  • In terms of the trade-in value, which was lower than what the consumer was expecting, we believe that the customer felt that the loss of value to their car was in relation to the risk attached to the thefts of catalytic convertors, which was not the case.
  • The value of a vehicle naturally falls, and there is always a difference between the retail and part exchange values.
  • We are unfortunately unable to assist the consumer further at this point.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties, and explained that the consumer had the responsibility to show that the business was obliged to disclose the information about the high risk of component theft to them, and that their failure to recommend additional security measures had caused the theft.
  • In regards to this, the adjudicator said that they would typically expect a car retailer to share information that they had knowledge of at the point of sale – relating to the history and usage of the vehicle, for example. However, a business would not be required to state what is commonly-known i.e. that all vehicles, and all parts of a vehicle are essentially at risk of theft.
  • The adjudicator noted that the business had offered to fit a catalytic lock – the theft deterrent measure recommended by the manufacturer, free of charge, as a goodwill gesture, and that the business had no legal obligation to provide such a gesture.
  • Based on the evidence available, the adjudicator concluded that they had not withheld pertinent information from the consumer at the point of sale, and were therefore not found to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
  • There was also insufficient evidence to support the fact that the lower than expected part exchange valuation of the vehicle was affected by the catalytic converter theft, or that not fitting the catalytic lock at the point of sale would have ultimately stopped the theft from taking place.
  • As a result, the dealership was not liable to make any further awards, as neither element of the consumer’s complaint was upheld.

The response to the adjudication outcome:

  • The business accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer disagreed with it, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman looked at the submissions by both parties involved in the dispute, and stated that the crux of the complaint was whether the business should have informed the consumer that the vehicle they were buying had been considered at high risk of catalytic converter theft, so the customer could have made an informed decision as to whether to proceed with the purchase.
  • When making this assessment, the ombudsman stated that he needed to consider the obligations placed on the business as per the Vehicle Sales Code, which referenced the following clauses:

Commitment: “All used vehicles for sale will be supported by information relevant to the specific vehicle and its history”.

 

Clause 2.11: The accredited business will not withhold information about a vehicle’s history or usage that may affect your decision to purchase the vehicle.

Clause 4.2: Staff will use their knowledge and experience to help you make your decision.

 

  • Having considered the evidence, it was clear that the manufacturer had written to all dealerships advising of the need to discuss this risk with potential purchasers of the vehicle in question.
  • Additionally, the ombudsman reviewed the manufacturer’s website, and noted that it had developed a risk matrix which it used to assess how much of a risk of theft each vehicle was placed at.
  • Based on this evaluation developed by the manufacturer, it was clear that the vehicle purchased by the consumer was considered to be at “high risk” of theft.
  • It was therefore clear that the business had a duty to use its “knowledge and experience” to assist the consumer in making their decision, and to provide information “relevant to the specific vehicle and its history”, taking into account the information which would impact the consumer’s “decision to purchase the vehicle”.
  • Having considered the information provided, and making a particular note that the manufacturer had created a matrix to assess the risk of theft, and that it classed the consumer’s vehicle as “high risk”, the ombudsman concluded that the business should have provided this information to the consumer at the point of sale so that they could make an informed decision, whilst also taking into account their particular circumstances and their intended use of the vehicle.
  • On this basis, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, but stated that the previous offers made by the business to purchase the vehicle back for the top-end of its market value, or to fit a device to the customer’s existing car, which would enhance the security of the vehicle, were fair, reasonable and proportionate, in the circumstances.
  • As such, the ombudsman stated that the business should maintain these offers in resolution of the complaint raised by the consumer.

Conclusion:

  • The consumer accepted the ombudsman’s final decision, and the case was closed.