The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new luxury electric city car on finance from a dealership in March 2022, after waiting five months for it to be delivered. A month after purchasing the vehicle, I was driving home, and the car suddenly started to accelerate forwards without me doing anything. No damage was done on this occasion, so I did not immediately report it or seek any advice. However, two days later, the same thing happened, and I hit a wall, causing damage to a corner of the car on the front-end. This incident also left me very shaken.
When the vehicle was collected from the roadside, the recovery driver noticed the same random acceleration when he was trying to load it on to the truck. The business investigated the issue, but found no faults with the vehicle. As I was not able to reject the car, because I was blamed for pressing the accelerator at the time of the accident, I was therefore forced to accept a fault claim on my insurance to have my car repaired at my own cost, thereby affecting future premiums, and causing me to lose my no claims bonus.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to take the car back, and give me a full refund, whilst compensating me for my losses and mental stress that I have incurred, especially because the dealership treated me so badly and looked down on me.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have reviewed the customer’s complaint and the details of their request for a resolution.
- In response to the points raised by the consumer, we contacted the manufacturer, and they supported us in carrying out a detailed interrogation of the vehicle data that was recorded in the time leading up to the incident.
- It was established through the vehicle’s EDR (Event Data Recorder) that, in the moments prior to the impact, the accelerator was activated progressively, ending in 100% input. The findings equally showed that there was no record of the brakes being applied.
- During our diagnostics, we also carried out a full systems test, and checked the vehicle memory for any faults relating to the driveline or braking system, but none were found.
- In addition, we carried out an extensive 200-mile road test involving various driving scenarios and manoeuvres, but were unable to replicate the issues experienced by the consumer during any of these tests.
- Therefore, it has been determined that the vehicle has been operating correctly, and are unable to provide the resolution the consumer is seeking.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, if a defect is discovered within the first six months of purchase, it is evidentially presumed that it is an inherent fault which would have been present at the point of sale, meaning the retailer has the evidential burden of proving the contrary.
- The adjudicator also found that both parties were disputing as to whether there was a fault with the car. He also added that the consumer needed to provide evidence, whether it be observable or technical, that confirmed the vehicle suffered from a fault.
- On that note, whilst the adjudicator was not disputing the consumer’s version of events relating to the vehicle automatically accelerating, the evidence supplied by them did not support this position.
- Whilst the adjudicator acknowledged that the vehicle “jumped forward”, vigorous inspections were conducted, and the vehicle was road tested over 200 miles, but the business was unable to replicate the fault. In addition, the EDR showed that the accelerator was manually pressed, and that the vehicle was operating as designed, with no faults stored in the vehicle’s memory. Therefore, without documentary evidence to disprove this version of events, the adjudicator was unable to uphold this aspect of the consumer’s complaint.
- In terms of the consumer’s claim that the dealership’s level of customer service fell below that which should be expected by a consumer, there was no evidence to support this, meaning this element of the complaint could also not be upheld.
- With regards to the consumer incurring other financial losses in relation to their insurance claim, and losing their no claims bonus, this unfortunately fell beyond the remit of The Motor Ombudsman.
- In conclusion, there was no evidence to support the fact that the business had breached the Vehicle Sales Code, and the consumer’s case was not upheld in their favour.
The response to the adjudication outcome:
- The business agreed with the adjudication outcome, but the consumer disputed it based on their version of events being ignored, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided and the adjudicator’s decision, and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the reports and investigations were more persuasive than the documentation supplied by the consumer.
- The vehicle data clearly showed the brake had not been operated prior to the crash, and that that the accelerator had been fully depressed at the time of the incident.
- There was no evidence or reason to suggest the Event Data Recorder was at fault, nor were any fault codes found relating to either the brake or the accelerator. The ombudsman found it unlikely both systems would fail, but produce no fault codes.
- The ombudsman noted the statement from the recovery agent. However, he deemed it to be non-descriptive, unspecific, and did not identify any substantive faults with the vehicle. He advised that a vehicle “jumping forward quickly” was a subjective description and could be attributed to any number of factors, particularly as it was the first time the agent drove that specific car.
- The ombudsman also advised he was not present for any customer service issues, and there was no record of what was said between the two parties, meaning there was insufficient evidence for him to make an award on this point.
- As a result, none of the aspects of the consumer’s complaint were upheld in their favour, and no breach of the Vehicle Sales Codes had been identified.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not respond to the ombudsman’s final decision within the allotted timeframe, and the case was closed.
