The consumer’s issue:
“In December 2020, I bought a brand new SUV from a dealership. Around a year or so later, in January 2022, I experienced many issues with it, most notably a bad creaking sound from the suspension when turning and going over any speed bumps. I therefore took the vehicle to several dealerships, including where I purchased the SUV, to try to get the issue resolved. One dealership (not the seller) agreed that there was a problem, but that they could not fix it. They then stated that they would not be able to work on the car, as they did not get paid for warranty work unless they found and rectified the fault.
I subsequently complained to the manufacturer, and they assisted with trying to get the vehicle repaired through the selling dealership. The manager at this business was initially very helpful stating that they would fix the issue, and if this was not possible, they would source a new replacement vehicle. However, since then, they have stated that they were not able to fix it, and that they and their head office technical team were working on a resolution.
The vehicle was therefore returned to me with the same inherent problems, and I am now left with an SUV which has caused nothing but stress, annoyance and no end time for fixing. In addition, the vehicle is on a PCP deal, so this means that the well over 1,000 miles used to drive the vehicle back and forth to garages will affect this arrangement. To resolve my complaint, I am still looking for a brand new replacement vehicle, and if this is not possible, I am seeking a full refund for the entire amount that I paid.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have been waiting for a report from the manufacturer on the modified parts that will resolve the issue.
- Unfortunately, the necessary components are still in development, and will not be available for another few months.
- We are therefore unable to fix the customer’s vehicle until the new parts are supplied, so no further action can be taken at present.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that both parties were seemingly in agreement that the vehicle was inherently defective, rather than being due to anything that that customer had done with the car since buying it.
- The cause of the suspension noise was due to the inadequate quality of the parts fitted i.e. the road spring and top mount. As such, it is clear the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality, and parts were therefore being replaced under warranty.
- However, the main concern at hand was whether the selling dealership had provided effective aftersales support to resolve the issues reported by the consumer.
- The adjudicator remarked that, in most instances, the seller must be given an opportunity to rectify the faults and do so at no cost to the consumer. He added that this should also be done within a reasonable timeframe and without causing significant inconvenience. If the seller cannot meet this criteria, alternative remedies should be pursued.
- Due to the delays in sourcing the parts and the repairs, the consumer would be waiting an unreasonable amount of time for the issue to be resolved, thereby causing a significant inconvenience.
- The consumer requested a new replacement vehicle as a resolution to their complaint. However, the adjudicator explained this was not likely to be a feasible option.
- This is because the replacement vehicle had to be equivalent to the current one i.e. of the same make, model, mileage and specification. It was considered unlikely the seller would have the ability to find such a vehicle.
- As such, the adjudicator decided that the most reasonable resolution in the circumstances would be for the vehicle to be rejected, and for the consumer to be fully refunded.
- As the rejection was after the first 30 days of purchase, the adjudicator indicated that the seller would be entitled to make deductions for the consumer’s use of the vehicle.
- The adjudicator also indicated that The Motor Ombudsman did not award compensation for unquantifiable losses, or make considerations for non-demonstrable issues, such as distress, frustration, or inconvenience to the consumer.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
