The consumer’s issue:
A consumer purchased a used ’68-plate compact crossover SUV with 20,000 miles on the clock in January 2022 from a business, and in September 2023, the vehicle suffered a clutch failure. The customer understood the manufacturer’s warranty covered clutch-related issues up to a specified mileage of 60,000 and said this had materially influenced their decision to buy the car.
However, when making a claim, the consumer stated that an authorised franchised repairer they visited had different warranty terms compared to those stated by the vehicle manufacturer, and advised that the warranty’s time limit of five years of age or 60,000 miles for this period had expired. The consumer disputed this, arguing that the clutch-specific terms did not state “whichever comes first” for the time and mileage limits, unlike other sections.
Believing it would be quicker and cheaper than the service provided by the franchise repairer, the consumer had the clutch replaced independently and sought a reimbursement of over £1,000 from the vehicle manufacturer. They also complained that the manufacturer had not responded to requests for clarification about the warranty.
The business disputed liability. Although a replacement clutch kit was needed, the vehicle had been removed by the consumer from the franchise repairer before further investigation could establish the cause and whether it was covered. The business also said the clutch disc’s limited cover of a vehicle being 24 months of age or driven up to 60,000 miles during this time, had expired.
The case outcome:
When reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman stated that the limited-cover term applied specifically to the clutch disc, but the evidence did not establish which component had failed or why. A replacement clutch did not itself demonstrate a covered manufacturing defect.
Even if the clutch disc had failed, its cover would have already expired, and the ombudsman found that cover ended when either the time or mileage limit was reached; omitting “whichever comes first” did not make the term ambiguous.
Without further investigation before the independent garage repair, a manufacturing defect had not been identified. The ombudsman therefore found that the business had correctly declined the claim made by the consumer. However, the vehicle manufacturer had failed to provide an effective, immediate response to the complaint, as required by the New Car Code.
Conclusion:
The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour – mirroring the adjudicator’s initial decision, and required a formal apology for inadequate complaint handling, but did not award a reimbursement of the repair cost. The case was then closed.
