EGR valve failure

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used six-year-old 64-plate hatchback from a dealership in October 2020 with around 59,000 miles on the clock. Around a year later, after completing just 3,000 miles, I had problems with the car, so I took it to a local repairer to look at it. Following their investigation, they told me there was a fault with the EGR valve and cooler, so I agreed to have these parts replaced at a cost of £800.

Three months passed, and I started to encounter further problems with the car, so I took it back to the business, and they informed me that the water pump also needed to be changed at a cost of around £300.

As I hadn’t used the car much since it was sold to me, I contacted the dealership I bought the car from, asking if they could contribute towards the cost of repairs. However, they declined, as they said that I was sold a used vehicle, and that the business had not been given the chance to inspect my car before I had the repairs carried out.

As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the selling dealership to either contribute towards the repair costs I’ve incurred (i.e. £1,100), or for them to take the car back and give me a refund.”

The accredited business’ response:

  •  We believe that at the time of the sale, the vehicle was supplied in a satisfactory condition with regards to its age, mileage and value. The car had also passed its MOT in September 2020 shortly before being supplied to the customer.
  • Furthermore, any used car of this age and mileage will inevitably show signs of wear and tear commensurate with previous use.
  • In January 2022, some 16 months after taking delivery of the vehicle, the consumer contacted us complaining about the money they had spent on repairs since taking delivery of the vehicle.
  • Neither of the invoices supplied by the repairer explained why the parts required replacement, and we were also prevented from carrying out any investigation into any such concerns, or the need for any work to the customer’s vehicle.
  • Unfortunately, as with any used car, components will require repair and maintenance, and we believe the components that have been replaced have simply reached the end of their serviceable lives.
  • We therefore do not believe we are obligated to refund the costs the customer incurred repairing their car.

The adjudication outcome:

  •  The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator stated that, under the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, the business was required to ensure the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, was fit for purpose, and as described at the point of sale.
  • The adjudicator noted that, as the customer reported an issue with their vehicle more than six months after taking ownership, they had the evidential burden of showing that the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault present at the point of sale.
  • The adjudicator carefully reviewed the evidence in his possession and noted the repairs were indeed completed more than a year after the car was sold to the consumer, and that there was nothing that suggested these works were an inevitable consequence of any shortcomings that were present in the car at the point of sale, which would be the responsibility of the selling dealership to rectify.
  • As such, as the evidence did not suggest that a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld.

Conclusion

  • Neither the consumer nor the business objected to the adjudicator’s findings, and the case was closed.