The consumer’s issue:

The consumer bought a used two-year-old 18-plate pickup truck in November 2020. Two years later, in September 2022, they reported the discolouration of the scuttle panel below the windscreen wipers.

A claim was therefore made by a dealership on the consumer’s behalf to have the issue repaired under the manufacturer’s new car warranty, but this was declined on the basis that the problem was due to an external influence, namely that the consumer had used the wrong cleaning products.

In response, the customer said that they had never been informed about the types of cleaning products that could be used on the vehicle, and believed the material was not fit-for-purpose, and had degraded due to UV damage.

As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking for the defective scuttle panel to be replaced under warranty, rather than having to pay the estimated £200 cost.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and explained that the consumer had the responsibility of showing that there was a manufacturing defect.

The adjudicator noted that the scuttle panel showed evidence of defects in the form of marks and stains, which appeared to be in line with the remains usually left after the pooling of a cleaning product which subsequently dried out. The manufacturer had also stated that the defect was the result of a cleaning product which had caused discolouration, and that the consumer had not used the right products or cleaned the vehicle in a way that was in line with the instructions laid out in the owner’s manual.

As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the warranty claim had been correctly refused, as there was no evidence available to demonstrate that the discolouration was the result of UV radiation causing premature wear, or a manufacturing defect. Therefore, no breach of the New Car Code had been identified, meaning this element of the dispute could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer disagreed with the outcome on the basis of the adjudicator’s findings, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision. Upon reviewing the case, the ombudsman noted that blotches of stains in random patches on the scuttle panel suggested that water and cleaning products were left in certain areas, and caused circular markings upon drying. Based on this, the ombudsman came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator in that no manufacturing defect was present, and no award could be made to the consumer.

The customer in this case also did not think the material used in the manufacturing process for the scuttle panel was fit purpose. Therefore, the customer was advised by the ombudsman to make a claim against the selling dealership under the Vehicle Sales Code. The Code of Practice requires vehicles to be sold as fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.
Separately to this, the consumer was also unhappy with the lack of information they were given by the dealership about the cleaning products that should be used, and the fact that they could not provide answers on this.

As the member of staff at the dealership did not have knowledge of this at the time of raising their concerns, this aspect of the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the ombudsman recommended that the manufacturer equips its network with the right information to be able to answer questions from customers, especially when it relates to a warranty claim.

Conclusion:

In summary, the case was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour. However, no response was received from either party, and the case was closed.