Engine and turbo failure

The consumer’s issue:

“I bought a brand new compact crossover SUV in October 2017, and in August 2019, after 32,000 miles of driving, I made a claim against my new car warranty following the total failure of my engine and turbo. The vehicle manufacturer investigated my claim, but declined it saying the breakdown of these parts was a direct result of me missing my 12 and 24-month service intervals. I don’t think this is reasonable, because neither the selling dealership nor the engine management system on my car prompted me to have my car serviced or warned me that the oil levels were low. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the vehicle manufacturer to accept responsibility for some or all of the costs of replacing the engine and turbo, which equate to around £8,000.

The accredited business’ response:

  • The warranty handbook and maintenance schedule were provided to the consumer when they purchased the car.
  • It states that the car should be serviced every 12 months or 12,500 miles (whichever comes first), but no routine maintenance had ever been performed on the vehicle.
  • Upon investigation, the dealership confirmed that that the vehicle required a new engine and turbo, but we rejected to have the car repaired under warranty due to the incomplete service history.
  • Therefore, as no measures had been taken to preserve and maintain the vehicle, no goodwill was offered to the consumer.
  • Also, the service light indicator would illuminate to inform the end user of the required service at the correct mileage interval, and we have not been supplied with any evidence to indicate that this light malfunctioned.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The adjudicator reviewed the evidence, which indicated that the engine and turbo failed due to insufficient oil, and not as a result of poor workmanship or materials used during the manufacturing process.
  • In regards to the failure of the car’s engine warning lights and/or the selling dealership’s failure to remind the consumer that their car was due for servicing, there was no evidence showing a fault or that there was a manufacturing defect.
  • Therefore, while the adjudicator was sympathetic to the consumer’s situation, he was unable to agree the business had acted unreasonably when it declined the consumer’s warranty claim, or that there was any wrong doing by the business.
  • As a result, the customer was liable for the total cost of replacing the engine and turbo.

Conclusion:

  • The customer and accredited business accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator, and the case was closed.