The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a brand-new saloon from a dealership in 2019, and four years later, they noticed a knocking noise from the engine. They contacted the retailer, and arranged for the vehicle to be looked at. The inspection subsequently found oil leaks and engine noise, but the cause of the fault could not initially be confirmed.
The consumer then took the vehicle to another franchise dealer, where the customer agreed to pay for an engine strip-down, which revealed that the engine had been damaged by oil starvation. At the same time, the business also reviewed the vehicle’s service history and found that several intervals had been completed much later than the manufacturer prescribed.
The consumer however, disputed the dealer’s findings that poor servicing had caused the engine damage. Instead, they believed the fault was caused by a manufacturing defect and referred to information about similar engine issues, and later explained that a blocked diesel particulate filter (DPF) was responsible, which had caused the damage. The customer also stated that mechanical experts had confirmed this to be the case.
A claim was submitted to fix the car under warranty, but the manufacturer declined to cover the repairs (costing around £8,700) because of its inconsistent service history. However, it offered a goodwill contribution of about £1,100 towards replacing the turbocharger, but the consumer did not deem this to be sufficient and requested that any work was at no cost to themselves.
The case outcome:
An adjudicator reviewed the information submitted by both parties, and considered whether the consumer had provided sufficient evidence that the engine damage was caused by a manufacturing defect and was therefore covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
The adjudicator noted that the manufacturer’s service schedule required the vehicle to be serviced every 20,000 miles or 12 months, whichever came first. The documentation showed that the vehicle had not been serviced in line with these requirements, as there were later than scheduled.
The consumer claimed the engine damage was caused by a known manufacturing defect. However, no evidence was found to demonstrate this, with the consumer relying on online information related to different vehicle variants and another market beyond the UK. Similarly, the adjudicator also gave limited weight to forum comments because they were not reliable technical evidence about the cause of the reported failure.
The adjudicator considered that delayed servicing and oil changes could cause engine oil to deteriorate and could lead to bearing wear. There was no independent technical evidence showing that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect. As such, based on the balance of probabilities, the adjudicator could not conclude that the manufacturer was responsible for the failure.
The adjudicator did not uphold the warranty complaint, but supported the manufacturer’s goodwill offer of about £1,100 towards the cost of repair. They equally explained that this gesture was discretionary and did not mean the manufacturer was required to pay the remaining sum under the terms of the warranty.
The consumer disagreed with the outcome, stating that the wording used by the vehicle manufacturer in its technical findings was speculative. They also questioned why the carmaker had not authorised the engine strip-down, and therefore asked for the investigation cost to be reimbursed.
The consumer later provided more information after a replacement or reconditioned engine also failed, and said that the replacement engine had suffered similar damage because of a blocked DPF, and showed from their perspective that the original engine failure had not been caused by the vehicle’s service history. The consumer also referred to the fact that mechanical experts had confirmed the cause of the failure, and that DPF maintenance was part of the manufacturer’s service requirements.
As the consumer disagreed with what the adjudicator found, the matter was escalated to an ombudsman for a final decision. As there was a period of time that had passed since the adjudication outcome, the ombudsman contacted the consumer to check whether there was any further evidence or any new developments. In response, they confirmed they no longer had access to the original vehicle or its parts. They still maintained that a blocked DPF had caused the engine damage, but could not provide enough independent technical evidence to show this.
The ombudsman accepted that the consumer had paid significant costs towards the repairs, and remained unhappy with the outcome. However, the additional information did not show, on the balance of probabilities, that the original engine damage was caused by a manufacturing defect or a fault with the DPF, but was contributed to by the vehicle’s service history.
The ombudsman therefore found no reason to depart from the adjudicator’s findings. As the manufacturer had not been found to be required to repair the vehicle under the warranty, the ombudsman was unable to recommend that it reimbursed the consumer for the engine strip-down or the latter repair costs.
The manufacturer’s goodwill contribution remained available to the consumer as a discretionary offer, but did not change the finding that there was no warranty obligation to provide the repair.
Conclusion:
Although the consumer experienced significant engine damage and paid substantial repair costs, the available evidence did not show that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect or by a blocked DPF.
The vehicle’s service history showed that several services had been completed much later than the manufacturer recommended. Without sufficient independent technical evidence showing another cause, the ombudsman could not conclude that the manufacturer was responsible for the engine failure under the vehicle’s warranty.
As a result, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld by the ombudsman, whilst the manufacturer was not required to reimburse the consumer’s investigation or repair costs. Nevertheless, the discretionary goodwill offer remained available.
Key learning point:
Where a consumer says an engine failure was caused by a manufacturing defect, there needs to be enough independent or technical evidence to show the likely cause.
A vehicle’s service history is also relevant when deciding whether a warranty claim should be accepted, especially when a vehicle has not been maintained in line with the manufacturer’s recommended intervals.
Where a consumer later raises a different possible cause of failure, such as a blocked DPF, the new information must still show a link between that issue and the damage complained about. General information about what a fault can cause will not, by itself, show that it did lead to the specific failure occurring.
Finally, a goodwill gesture made by a business is ultimately voluntary, and should be kept separate from a finding that a business or manufacturer is required to meet the full cost of repair.
