The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used city car priced at nearly £10,000 from a franchise dealership in April 2019. When my wife, who is 5ft 2in tall (which is not unusual), sits in the passenger seat, the seat belt crosses her neck, which would be very dangerous in an accident. The owner’s handbook states the belt should not be worn in this manner, so I made a complaint verbally to the manufacturer, and I was told that the seat and belt were designed for an “average-sized” person, but I think there should be a provision for people of different heights.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be fit for purpose. Therefore, as the problem existed when I bought the car, I am looking for the issue to be resolved at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We supplied the vehicle to the same manufacturer’s specification as it was at the point of build. At no point did we alter or amend the vehicle for any purpose.
- On receiving the complaint, our sales manager made attempts to resolve the issue, including contacting a company that specialises in adapting vehicles for consumers with specific needs.
- We also raised the issue about the seat belt with the manufacturer.
- In summary, we have provided a car to the consumer that meets and complies with manufacturing tolerances. This is the same specification that was also applicable to the vehicle when safety tested.
- It is therefore inaccurate that the vehicle was supplied with a defect.
- Whilst the consumer stated that they are seeking a remedy in light of the alleged fault, we cannot do this, as it is our belief that a manufacturing defect does not exist, and any alteration to meet the requests made would involve amending or changing the vehicle’s safety structure – something that our company will not do.
- We would respectfully suggest that an alternative vehicle should have been considered, where features such as height adjustment would have been available to support the consumer’s needs.
- We would be happy to consider any requests for an alternative model at a fair cost to the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator acknowledged the photograph submitted by the consumer showing the seat belt sat at the base of their wife’s neck. However, the seat and seat belt did undergo tests, and it was determined there was no issue with either component.
- The manufacturer explained that the seat belt was performing as it was designed to, and there was no opposing technical evidence submitted to support the consumer’s position.
- The adjudicator therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that the dealership had supplied the consumer with a vehicle that had a faulty seat belt, and was in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
- As a result, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no further recommendations were made to the business.
Conclusion:
- As neither party responded to the adjudication outcome, it was assumed they accepted it. The case was then closed.
