The consumer’s issue:
“About two years after buying my used diesel SUV from a dealership, I started noticing moisture seeping in around the sunroof controls on to the car’s interior roof lining. Also, the automatic closing feature stopped working as it used to.
I therefore took the car back to the business to get it checked out. They found a leak around the sunroof frame, and suggested replacing it entirely to fix the issue. They also recommended replacing the car’s carpet and underlay because of a strong mould odour. Unfortunately, my warranty didn’t cover sunroof repairs, so I had to pay for everything myself.
Even though both the dealership and the manufacturer agreed to contribute to the cost of replacing the sunroof frame, I still had to pay the over £1,400 from my own pocket. However, I was unable to afford the replacement of the carpet and underlay.
Around a month after the repairs, the leak came back, so I returned to the dealership, and this time, they tried clearing the sunroof drains. But, when that didn’t work, they replaced the sunroof frame again under warranty. However, the issue persisted for about six months until they sealed the joins on the sunroof frame, finally fixing the leak.
After some online research, I found out there’s a known issue with the panoramic sunroofs with cars of the same model as mine. Considering this, I believe that the problem with my car’s sunroof was there when I bought it from the dealership, and the business should have taken responsibility for fixing the known issue. To resolve my complaint, I am seeking a refund for the repair costs, and for them to cover the replacement of the water-damaged interior carpet and underlay at no charge.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We do not acknowledge that there was any known issue with the panoramic sunroof found in the model of car belonging to the customer.
- Regarding the consumer’s complaint, the sunroof frame did indeed have a manufacturing defect that caused water to enter the vehicle’s interior.
- Unfortunately however, the issue only became apparent after the manufacturer’s warranty had expired. Therefore, in these circumstances, we could only reach out to the manufacturer to request goodwill assistance on the customer’s behalf, which resulted in their repair bill being reduced by 50%.
- Given these circumstances, we are unable to refund my contribution towards the repair bill or take responsibility for replacing the damaged carpet and underlay.
The adjudication outcome:
- After examining the evidence, the adjudicator acknowledged that the dealership disputed the existence of a latent issue with the panoramic sunroof found in the model of car that the customer owned.
- Instead, the business attributed the customer’s leaking sunroof to a specific issue with the sunroof frame, describing it as a manufacturing defect.
- Whilst recognising that the sunroof faults might not fall under the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty, the adjudicator pointed out that the seller was responsible for addressing any faults present at the time of sale. Therefore, if the car had a manufacturing defect leading to the sunroof frame failure, it implied that the issue was present at the time of purchase.
- Consequently, when the sunroof defect became apparent within six years of the sale, the selling dealership should have taken responsibility for rectifying it, including any damage to the car’s interior caused by the defective sunroof frame.
- In view of this, the adjudicator concluded that the complaint should be upheld in the customer’s favour, and requested that the selling dealership provided a full refund of the costs the customer incurred in repairing the sunroof leak, and to accept responsibility for rectifying any internal damage resulting from the defective sunroof frame.
Conclusion:
- Both parties agreed to the adjudicator’s findings and recommendations, and the case was closed.
