The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a used ’73 plate luxury coupé in February 2025 for around £40,000. Unable to view the vehicle in person, as they lived some distance away from the car dealership, they relied on the retailer’s confirmation at the point of sale that the vehicle’s bodywork was in excellent condition.
Upon delivery, the customer noticed two deep marks on the front bumper, and immediately reported this to the retailer with photos. The dealership asked them to obtain a repair quote and said the cost would be covered, but later failed to respond.
After waiting several days, the consumer arranged the work themselves at a cost of £216, and informed the business. When the dealership eventually replied after lodging a complaint, they refused to reimburse the amount, stating the issue was cosmetic damage and would therefore not be covered.
As a resolution to their dispute, the consumer was looking for the full cost of the repair to be refunded, as well as compensation for missing half a day of work, so as not to be left out of pocket, equating to a total claim value of around £500.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties, and the vehicle was assessed by the adjudicator under a potential breach of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”). This is because the Act recognises that used vehicles are subject to signs of general wear and tear over the course of their use.
When looking at the vehicle’s age i.e. it was approximately two years old at the time of sale, and with a purchase price of circa £40,000, it was accepted that a reasonable consumer purchasing a vehicle of this value and profile would expect it to be of a near-new cosmetic condition.
The adjudicator remarked that the two scratches on the bumper were found to be surface-level marks (around a centimetre in size), consistent with everyday use, and were therefore not considered to be significant damage or a condition beyond what a reasonable consumer would expect for a vehicle of this age. As a result, this did not amount to a breach of satisfactory quality under the CRA, and this element of the case was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
In terms of the level of communication received from the dealership, it was found that the retailer had not addressed the concerns of the consumer promptly and breached the Vehicle Sales Code, which explains that complaints should be handled in a fair and timely manner. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint was upheld, but no compensation could be awarded to the customer as this fell beyond the remit of The Motor Ombudsman.
Conclusion:
Based on what had happened, the adjudicator recommended that the dealership implemented new systems to improve the level of communication to customers, and noted that the retailer had offered £150 in vouchers as a goodwill gesture.
Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
