The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a new 67-plate hybrid estate car from a dealership in November 2017. Around two years later, in October 2019, the car was left in a car park opposite my house, and the vehicle’s catalytic converter was stolen. The repair wasn’t covered under the manufacturer’s warranty, and would have cost me £1,200, so I had to make a claim on my motor insurance to have a replacement fitted. I paid £250 for the excess on the claim. I also looked into the cost of having a lock fitted on the catalytic converter, but the quote of £273 on top of the excess was too expensive and wouldn’t guarantee that the part couldn’t be stolen again.
I subsequently found out that there had been a rise in the theft of catalytic converters and there had been another local theft on a car of the same make and model as mine. I believe there’s a design flaw that the catalytic converter isn’t protected. This is an inherent manufacturing fault and I’d like the dealership to reimburse the £250 I paid for the insurance excess. I’d also like them to provide me compensation for the increase in insurance premiums which will likely happen as a direct result of my claim.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We know that there was an increase in thefts of catalytic converters at this time, with the components being sold off for metal.
- Unfortunately, the customer has been a victim of criminal activity, and we are unable to predict or control theft.
- Whilst it is clearly unfortunate that the converter was stolen, it does not mean there is any kind of design flaw with the vehicle, and we cannot be held responsible for an act of crime.
- We do offer some protection plates, but these come at an additional cost to the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the consumer had only complained of a fault two years after purchase, and this was as a direct result of the theft.
- The evidence showed that both parties disputed whether the vehicle suffered from a problem. The business stated that the vehicle was the victim of criminal activity, rather than having a defect.
- Furthermore, the dealership also said that they had no control over the design of the car or its components, and any complaint relating to the build quality needed to be raised with the manufacturer directly.
- Therefore, the adjudicator concluded that the theft itself was not evidence that there was a manufacturing fault with the car, and that further information would need to be provided to show that there was an inherent defect with the vehicle.
- As a result, the complaint could not be upheld in the customer’s favour, as there had not been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
- The consumer was unhappy with the adjudication outcome, and asked for the case to be reviewed by an ombudsman for a final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman explained that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales provided the consumer with a remedy in the event that the car supplied isn’t of satisfactory quality, meaning it must be inherently faulty.
- However, the ombudsman explained that there was an increase in the theft of this particular component at the time in question.
- She said there was no evidence that the theft of this part was isolated to this particular make and model of car.
- The ombudsman empathised with the situation the consumer had found themselves in. However, she said theft was a criminal act and not something the dealership could influence or control.
- The ombudsman concluded that the was not enough evidence to suggest that there was a manufacturing fault with the customer’s car.
- As a result, the ombudsman could not uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour and could not recommend that the dealership refund the cost of the £250 insurance excess.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not respond to the final decision and the complaint was closed.
