The consumer’s issue:
“My vehicle was taken to an approved body shop in August 2017. The photos and images of the rust and corrosion on my car were forwarded by the bodyshop to the vehicle manufacturer. The bodyshop told me that there was substantial corrosion and that this was unusual in a car of its quality. On 8 November 2017, I received confirmation that the full cost of repair would be covered and the bodyshop received a similar message on 14 November 2017. On 20 November 2017, however, I received an email stating that the warranty claim had now been rejected. I want the manufacturer to pay for this under warranty.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We reviewed the history of the case and found that the bodyshop initially advised that the repair work would be covered under warranty.
- Unfortunately, the correct process was not followed hence the consumer was misinformed.
- We apologised to the customer and explained that the bodyshop should not have advised on warranty matters, as that was not their role.
- In accordance with their normal process, the warranty team asked the bodyshop to take photographs of the damage, which were reviewed by specialists at the highest level.
- Following assessment, it was deemed that the corrosion was not ‘perforation’, which is corrosion starting from a hollow section, cavity or seam and continuing to the outside of the body part. Therefore, the warranty would not apply in this case.
- A second inspection of the vehicle was carried out, and the decision remained the same.
- We are not looking to cover the cost of the repairs.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator didn’t uphold the customer’s complaint.
- She had not been provided with any technical evidence to demonstrate that the corrosion was due to perforation, which is corrosion coming from the inside of the metal panel to the outside, and is the only type of corrosion covered under an anti-perforation warranty. The opinion of the manufacturer was that the corrosion was not covered
- The consumer sought a technical report, and the independent engineer confirmed he believed some of the corrosion was due to a manufacturing defect, but did not confirm whether he thought the corrosion was perforation.
- The adjudicator therefore continued not to uphold the complaint.
- The consumer was unhappy, as he felt the technical report supported his case, and asked for the complaint to be referred to the ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman partially upheld the customer’s complaint.
- The adjudicator was correct that the independent engineer did not specifically state that the cause of the corrosion was perforation.
- However, he did identify the corrosion as a manufacturing defect, and both parties agreed that the bodyshop who initially inspected the vehicle, thought it should be covered under warranty – implying that they thought it was perforation.
- As such, the areas identified as corroding due to a manufacturing defect by the independent engineer were deemed to be covered under warranty and the manufacturer was asked to pay for the repairs.
- However, the independent engineer had identified some areas as corroding due to previous repairs and external influences, which meant that these would not be covered under warranty.
Conclusion:
- The manufacturer had breached the Code of Practice for New Cars and the complaint was partially upheld, with the manufacturer being asked to cover the cost of repairs to the areas of the car suffering from perforation.
