The consumer’s issue:
“I have an intermittent noise coming from the dashboard, and the independent engineer, who viewed the vehicle, said that this may be due to the shock absorbers. Whilst he was carrying out his inspection, he noticed an oil leak, and that the brake pads and discs were worn. I showed the engineer a video of the noise and they said it was a material issue and I should be entitled to a full refund of the price paid for the car.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The vehicle was not found to have a manufacturing defect, either by the inspecting retailer or the report by the independent engineer.
- Examination of the vehicle during the test drive did not reveal any loud noise from the dashboard.
- Based on the information available, we do not agree that the customer’s vehicle is suitable for rejection.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator requested a copy of the engineer’s report in full so it could be considered in its entirety, as opposed to just extracts.
- The adjudicator was advised that, as it was commissioned by the consumer, it remained their property and could not be provided without their consent. In fact, the customer refused to provide a copy of the report.
- As material evidence that was sought to be relied on by both parties was being withheld, this was in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s terms of use.
- In addition, with parties alleging what the engineer’s report contained, and with no copy being provided, this had to be considered secondary evidence that could not be reasonably relied upon.
- The adjudicator therefore felt there was not sufficient evidence to prove either the presence of a fault, or an inherent issue present at the point of sale.
- As a result, the customer’s request for the rejection of their vehicle was not upheld, but stated that, if the report was provided, they would revisit the facts to determine whether rejection was a suitable remedy.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not challenge the adjudication outcome, nor did they provide the report requested or any other professional assessment. The case was therefore closed.
