The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a 20-plate hatchback from a dealership in July 2020, and two years’ later, the car suffered a failure at 70 mph when I was driving on the motorway. I contacted the manufacturer’s breakdown service, and my vehicle was towed to the local franchise dealership, and was I supplied with a hire car to continue my journey.
A week later, I was contacted by the business, and they told me they had stripped the car down and found the fault was “clutch burn”. They said this was caused by “driving style”, and as such, was classed a wear and tear, so would not be covered under the vehicle warranty. As a result, I was quoted £2,500 for the repair.
I challenged this diagnosis because I could not believe that a car of a high build quality could fail within two years of buying it, and without any warning. After being passed between two dealerships, the finance company, and the manufacturer, without any progress, I asked the manufacturer to re-open my dispute, as I was without a car, and the situation was becoming urgent.
I finally got through to the Customer Services Manager at the manufacturer, and they also insisted that the fault was caused by wear and tear due to driving style and there was nothing that could be done from a warranty perspective. I also received the same response from the Executive Office of the manufacturer, with the explanation that neither they or the dealership were prepared to make any contribution to the cost of repair.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to provide a full refund for the vehicle, or failing that, they need to absorb the full cost of the repair.”
The accredited business’ response:
- As the selling dealership, the consumer made contact with us after receiving the estimate of £2,500 to repair their vehicle from another franchise dealership.
- We confirmed that, based on the report provided by the other business, there was no evidence of any broken components, meaning the fault was classed as wear and tear, and would not be covered under the warranty.
- In addition, it is in our technical opinion that, as there was no component failure, it was likely that the faults reported were the result of the consumer’s driving style.
- We acknowledge the customer’s request to reject the vehicle in line with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but as a period of six months had passed following delivery of the vehicle, the necessary burden of proof rests with the customer, and therefore, we remain satisfied that the request does not meet the threshold for rejection.
- As a valued customer, we explained to the consumer that we would be prepared to investigate and diagnose the issue if the car was made available to us. In addition, we offered to reduce the price of the required repairs to £1,449 including VAT, which we believe is fair and appropriate in the circumstances.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator remarked that, if a defect is discovered after the first six months of purchase, then it is evidentially presumed that the cause of the problem occurred after the sale, and that the consumer had the evidential burden of proving otherwise.
- As the fault with the vehicle appeared 24 months from the point of sale, the presumption was that it was not there when the consumer purchased the vehicle in 2020.
- The adjudicator acknowledged that a clutch may last 10,000 miles before a new one is required or the consumer could drive up to 80,000 miles before it failed. They also explained that, whilst the vehicle was purchased as new, a clutch is subject to constant friction, so it is unsurprising that it would wear out eventually.
- The adjudicator explained that “riding” a clutch is one of the most common reasons for premature clutch failure, and said that even the slightest pressure on the pedal could partially disengage the clutch, causing the release bearing, pressure plate and fly wheel to overheat.
- The adjudicator said that to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and to ultimately agree that the cause of the fault was not due wear and tear, or their driving style, the consumer would need to submit evidence that would support that position.
- The adjudicator stated that it could be helpful to have an independent technician assess the clutch to confirm what had gone wrong, and more importantly, why.
- As it stood, there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that the component had experienced a mechanical fault, and that the cause of which was present from the point of sale, rather than being put down to standard wear and tear commensurate for a vehicle of the age and miles travelled or not due to the consumer’s driving style.
- Therefore, after looking at all the evidence presented, the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour, as no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code could be identified.
Conclusion
- As both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, the case was closed.
