The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a four-year-old hatchback from a dealership in August 2019. Around five months later, when there were less than 12,000 miles on the clock, the car broke down, and the engine suffered significant damage. Repairs totalling approximately £5,000 were needed.
Also, when I bought the vehicle, I believed that this was done on a Hire Purchase Agreement, but when I contacted the finance company, I was told the dealership had sold the car to me as a Personal Contract Purchase (PCP). However, I would have never agreed to buy the vehicle had I known it was this kind of contract.
I tried contacting the dealership to resolve these issues, but I spent nine weeks fighting with them and I didn’t know what was happening with my car. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to provide a full refund for the vehicle or to get me out of the PCP agreement as I did not agree to this.”
The accredited business’ response:
Engine fault
- In terms of the engine repair, this was completed at no cost to the customer, and we were never advised that there were any outstanding issues following the repairs in February/March 2020.
- We understand that the customer was concerned about the time that the repairs took, and this was recognised with a refund of £247 for diagnostic costs, cleaning of the vehicle, travel costs and fuel.
- The consumer has since decided to part exchange the car, even there was no fault with it.
Purchase dispute
- For the dispute regarding how the car was bought, both the initial order form and the final order document show this vehicle was bought via a PCP. The consumer had signed both of these documents.
- It would also be unusual for any finance company to offer a Hire Purchase Agreement with the amount of negative equity involved in this sale.
- We have acted in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act regarding the sale, and do not accept any liability.
The adjudication outcome:
Engine fault
- The evidence presented to the adjudicator demonstrated that, at the point of sale, the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault.
- In this case, it was the responsibility of the business to provide evidence that showed that, either the vehicle suffered no faults, or there was proof that they were not present when the vehicle was sold to the customer.
- The business stated that, on inspection, the vehicle’s engine faults were too sudden and significant to be likely caused at the point of sale. However, there was no evidence to show that there was no engine-related fault prior to the vehicle’s sale nor did the business provide any technical evidence that corroborated the statement that the fault could not have been caused at the point of sale.
- Whilst the dealership had repaired the car, they did not provide any technical evidence that showed the engine malfunction was not caused by any latent defect with the vehicle.
- Additionally, the time discrepancy between the date of sale and the engine failure further suggested the fault was likely present before the consumer purchased the car.
- Due to the severity of the damage and the amount of work required to repair it, the adjudicator found the vehicle was not sold in a satisfactory quality. The business had been in breach of their obligation under the Vehicle Sales Code.
- However, the dealership had repaired the car at no cost to the consumer, the correct course of action under the Consumer Rights Act. As there was no report of any other faults, it was assumed the repair was successful and the consumer would not be entitled to any further award for this complaint.
- The adjudicator had also noted the consumer had raised a query in July 2020 which was re-raised a month later, but the business had not provided any response to these e-mails. With the business failing to provide effective and immediate action meant that they were in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code and the consumer was entitled to an apology for the business’ lack of response.
Purchase dispute
- Looking at both the initial and final order form, the adjudicator noted it was clearly labelled under “finance details” that the vehicle was being sold under a PCP. There was no indication that this car was meant to be sold as a Hire Purchase.
- Also, both documents signed by the consumer showed that they acknowledged and accepted the terms of the sale.
- The adjudicator found no indication that the dealership had mis-sold or misrepresented the finance agreement during the sale process, and thus did not uphold the consumer’s complaint.
Conclusion:
- Both the business and the consumer accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
