The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new electric SUV from a dealership for around £80,000, and during the purchase, the salesperson told me the range on a full charge was 252 miles. They also mentioned the range would be reduced by up to 20% in the winter months, but I was not advised that the manufacturer recommends that you only charge to 80% to prolong the life of the battery.
After I bought the car, I discovered that the drop-off in range during cold weather was a lot more than that which was quoted at the point of sale, which subsequently affected the satellite navigation system, as it would only allow me to drive long distances using motorways. The dealership attempted to set a route using a charging station 137 miles away, but the system would only select the motorway option, even though the car was 100% charged.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the business to diagnose the fault so that the vehicle performs as advertised.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We told the consumer the range of the vehicle was 252 miles under Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) conditions, and around 20% less in cold weather.
- All vehicles, including petrol and diesel models, are affected by numerous influences, including how hard one presses the accelerator, the weight, how much luggage is in the car, and road conditions, to name but a few factors.
- We provide WLTP figures for range to prevent manufacturers from claiming the best figure, which can be hard to reproduce.
- We found no fault with the satellite navigation system, and determined, from our discussions, that the customer was simply dissatisfied with the pre-set parameters, and the way in which the system worked.
- As we believe that the vehicle is performing according to the manufacturer’s specification, and to the standards that the consumer confirms that they were made aware of when purchasing the car, plus they have nearly covered more than 13,500 miles in the year since taking ownership, we deem the vehicle fit for purpose.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the onus was on the consumer to show that, on a balance of probabilities, the dealership advertised the vehicle in a misleading or un-true manner, known as “misrepresentation”.
- The adjudicator also noted that part of the consumer’s evidence was their recollection of a verbal conversation between themselves and the salesperson regarding the vehicle and its range. However, the adjudicator could only base his decision on the evidence that was relevant and available to him.
- Whilst the adjudicator acknowledged that the the range seemed to be less than what the consumer was claiming was advertised, they said it was important to remember that an EV’s range is typically an estimate based on standardised test cycles, that it does not usually reflect real-world driving conditions, and is influenced by number of different factors.
- The adjudicator concluded that the documentary evidence submitted by the consumer did not demonstrate the presence of a fault with the vehicle or its range, or that the vehicle range was misrepresented. The same applied to the function of the satellite navigation system, which was neither deemed to be at fault.
- In addition, the adjudicator remarked that the car had been driven over 13,500 miles in the year since it had been purchased, thereby indicating that there did not seem to be an issue with the vehicle.
- As a result, the evidence did not indicate a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, meaning the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and made additional observations.
- He considered whether the vehicle was both of satisfactory quality and, whether it had been mis-sold.
- The ombudsman first accepted that vehicles will often not replicate WLTP conditions, due to the wide variety of factors which can affect range. These included, but are not limited to, weather, road conditions, driving style, the use of in-car electrical systems, and load.
- Similarly to miles-per-gallon (MPG), the driver can influence the efficiency, and may not obtain the testing figures.
- The ombudsman advised that testing figures are used to allow an accurate comparison of efficiency between different models.
- He equally found that the range achieved by the consumer was not so low that it indicated a fault with the vehicle, plus there was no other evidence to suggest a fault with the battery or vehicle generally.
- In terms of whether the vehicle had been mis-sold, the ombudsman advised that quoting WLTP figures was not inherently misleading. However, he believed the business should have explained to the consumer what these figures meant, before referring to them.
- The ombudsman noted he was not present for the sales conversations which took place in-person. As such, there was no way to prove one party’s position over the other.
- However, he saw that the business’s website referred to WLTP figures on the consumer’s exact model, and that these WLTP references were accompanied by links to additional information, and an explanation of what they were.
- The ombudsman found that, on balance, the business had adequately informed the consumer of the testing figures and did not mislead him.
- On the subject of the fault with the satellite navigation system, the consumer argued the SUV was selecting inefficient routes for electric vehicles.
- The ombudsman understood that the system took account of traffic, weather, and charging stations etc. Even if he accepted the consumer’s complaint as factual, he found it plausible that, even noting the vehicle was more efficient at below motorway speeds, it may have still been better to go on the motorway on the trips referred to by the consumer.
- Therefore, the ombudsman found there was insufficient evidence to support that any issues were present with the function of the satellite navigation system.
- In conclusion, the ombudsman did not uphold the consumer’s complaint on the above points, and no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code was identified.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not accept the ombudsman’s decision, and as this was the last stage of The Motor Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process, the case was closed.
