The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 18-plate saloon in April 2021. Due to wood splitting, the interior centre console was subsequently replaced under warranty the following month. Despite the replacement being a perfect match for the vehicle, the business damaged it, along with an air vent. I then found out that the part had come from another used vehicle, which had a CD slot – my car did not have a CD player and I did not expect to have a component sourced from another vehicle.
Since then, all the new replacement consoles did not match my original console or the first replacement. I even offered to pick a centre console from another car the business had in stock, but they refused.
I was offered a free service as compensation for what had happened, but I decided to no longer use this dealership based on the issues I encountered. I therefore took the car for its MOT at an alternative dealer, and they agreed about the inferior appearance of the centre console. I complained to the manufacturer’s head office, but their response was less than satisfactory.
Nevertheless, a gesture of goodwill from the manufacturer to use at any dealership would be a good starting point to compensate me for the dissatisfaction, distress and complete anxiety caused over this issue, but I am ultimately looking for the centre console to be replaced.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We feel that we have done everything possible to resolve the customer’s concerns.
- When the consumer collected their vehicle at the beginning of May, they noticed damage on the newly-installed console, behind the central vent. Another appointment was made a month later to investigate and repair the issue.
- When the vehicle arrived back on-site, a decision was made by a staff member to take the centre console from another vehicle on our forecourt which had the same trim fitted.
- This was to prevent a third visit, and although the part number of the console was the same, the equipment level was different as there was a CD player in the donor vehicle, and not the customer’s.
- The staff member in question was disciplined internally as a result of their actions, as it led to the consumer questioning our honesty and integrity. We therefore met with them to try to come to an amicable solution.
- In total, we ordered four versions of the same part number, all of which were very different in visual appearance.
- We also consulted the manufacturer before arriving at our final decision that the customer’s expectations were simply not achievable, as the component in question was derived from a natural source.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted it was clear from their response, that the business had acknowledged and accepted the damage to the centre console was likely caused by their actions.
- He also noted that the business agreed that they should not have replaced the unit with one from their forecourt, especially without informing the consumer this was the case. In fact, the customer reasonably expected a brand-new centre console and the business failed to meet this expectation.
- Whilst the adjudicator commends the business for internally disciplining the staff member involved, the dealership was still held accountable for their actions, meaning this part of the complaint was upheld in favour of the consumer.
- The main point of contention remaining however, was whether the business was sufficiently prompt and effective in rectifying their mistakes.
- The dealership had already purchased two additional units, but neither matched the original. It would therefore have been unreasonable for the business to buy any more parts, as it was unlikely further purchases would have yielded different results.
- The business refused to sell a part from a third-party vehicle on account it may affect their own ability to sell the vehicle.
- Based on the evidence provided by both sides, the adjudicator concluded the business had exhausted all reasonable actions in order to resolve the consumer’s complaint and they could not have been expected to do anything more.
- The adjudicator did however recommend that, if the consumer was able to source the part themselves, they would be entitled to have the cost of the part reimbursed by the business up to the amount they would have reasonably paid for it.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
