The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new compact luxury crossover SUV for around £40,000 from a franchise car dealership. Four years later, after I had only done 12,500 miles in the car, I was driving a short distance, and after just a few miles, I experienced severe knocking from the engine.
I had to pull over, and the car was recovered to a dealer workshop. After paying £99, they diagnosed the fault as being an engine bearing failure, and this required the replacement of the whole engine at a cost of £16,000.
The manufacturer offered a goodwill gesture to cover 75% of the cost of repairs, but I did not think this was sufficient due to the fact that the car had always been serviced on time, and had covered lower than average mileage since new.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the business to cover my share of the cost of the engine replacement (£4,000), which I ended up paying for out of my own pocket when my car was repaired.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When we looked at the customer’s car after they reported a loud rattle coming from the engine area, our technician found the engine had large metal shavings in the oil.
- After being authorised by the vehicle owner do so, we stripped the engine and removed the sump pan to assess the degree of damage and the replacement parts needed for repairs.
- It was found that the engine cylinder 2 bearing had spun and come apart which was the cause of the metal fragments in the oil.
- Our technician noted that the crankshaft also had scoring on it, meaning the existing engine was beyond repair.
- After the manufacturer agreed to cover three-quarters of the cost of the engine replacement out of goodwill, as the car was no longer within the new car warranty period, the consumer authorised the work, and paid the remaining 25% once completed.
- With regards to the consumer’s request for us to cover his portion of the cost of repair, we were unfortunately unable to offer anything more than what the manufacturer had provided.
The adjudication outcome:
- After reviewing the evidence, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that there was no technical evidence to confirm that the cause of the engine failure was present from the point of purchase.
- It was also not contested that the consumer had not serviced the vehicle in line with the requirements of the manufacturer, or that the issue was related to their driving style.
- With a car that had been looked after, the adjudicator found that, as the engine failed after four years, and with less than 13,000 miles on the clock, this was less than a ‘reasonable consumer’ would expect. She pointed out that most consumers would look to drive between 80,000 to 100,000 miles before a car should require major mechanical expense.
- As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the car was not of satisfactory quality, meaning the consumer’s complaint should be upheld in their favour and that a refund of £4,000 for the engine repair, plus the £99 diagnostics charge, should be provided.
The response to the adjudication outcome:
- The consumer accepted the adjudicator’s conclusion.
- However, the business rejected it on the grounds that a decision to grant or decline goodwill lies solely with the manufacturer, and that the cost of repair was due to a component failure.
- They also explained that, as the dealership, they solely apply the goodwill they have been granted, and did not agree that the remaining cost should be borne by them as the repairer.
- They therefore requested an ombudsman’s final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and considered the meaning of ‘satisfactory quality’ under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In this case, the consumer bought a new car, and four years later, the engine had to be replaced.
- As such, the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator that the engine should have lasted a minimum of 80,000 to 100,000 miles.
- The ombudsman equally explained that, under the terms of the Consumer Rights Act, it was the retailer, not the manufacturer, that was liable if goods were not of satisfactory quality.
- The ombudsman therefore came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator, and upheld the consumer’s complaint, and said that they should be refunded by the dealership for the remaining 25% of the cost of the replacement engine, as well as the aforementioned cost of the diagnostics.
Conclusion:
- The business agreed with the final decision, and the case was closed.
