The consumer’s issue:
“In May 2018, I bought a used 16-plate electric hatchback from a franchise dealership with the assistance of a finance agreement to help me fund the purchase. The vehicle was sold as having a complimentary EV home charger installation included. At the point of sale, I could not take advantage of this offer, but I was told that this proposition could be taken up at any time during the finance agreement.
Some time passed and my circumstances changed, and I moved into a new property which was suitable to have a home charger installed. I therefore contacted the dealership to organise having it fitted, but the business told me that this facility was no longer available, which was contrary to what they had told me when I had initially agreed to buy the electric vehicle.
I feel that I was misled by the dealership and, as a remedy, I would like them to cover the costs of the installation of the home charger, which equates to approximately £800.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The vehicle was purchased over three years ago, and the customer implies that we verbally advised them that the offer of a free home charging unit had no expiry date and could be taken up for several years following the purchase of the vehicle. There is however, no written record of this, including on the order form.
- Furthermore, we do not think it could be realistic to expect an offer made to remain open indefinitely. We are of the view that this would apply for any retail situation or purchase, and that it is generally accepted that offers have an expiry date where they can be taken advantage of.
- For these reasons, we maintain that we are not liable for covering the cost of the EV home charger as requested by the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained to the parties that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that the accredited business had given them a communication which was likely to mislead or be misunderstood.
- Initially, the adjudicator reviewed the evidence on the case file and did note that there was no documentation to support the conclusion that the business had been misleading, and specifically on the subject that a home charger installation would be a complimentary part of the sales agreement.
- In response to the adjudication outcome, the consumer submitted further documented evidence from around two years after the point of sale, whereby they had contacted the dealership seeking to take them up on the offer which the consumer alleged was made to them.
- The adjudicator did note that the business had not disputed the offer at this point, and had directed the consumer to a third party to proceed with the installation of the home charger.
- At this stage, the evidence submitted by the consumer had a material impact upon the original outcome reached by the adjudicator.
- The adjudicator was therefore satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the business had given the consumer a communication which was likely to mislead or be misunderstood. Otherwise, it would be expected that the business would have disputed the contents of the email sent by the consumer to them two years after the point of sale.
- The adjudicator also had to take consideration of the case law of Ramsgate v Montefiore (1866). The adjudicator pointed out that in this case, the courts had found that, where an offer has been made by a party to an agreement, there would be a reasonable period of time that an offer could be made before it would lapse and could not be accepted.
- However, what a reasonable period of time could be considered as would be relative to the facts and circumstances of each case.
- In this scenario, the adjudicator found that, by the nature of the offer, which was relating to the installation of a home charger, it would be reasonable to expect that it would be open for a longer period of time than in most other cases, as the nature of moving to a different property would be an event which could be expected to take more time than other circumstances.
- As such, the adjudicator found that there had been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code, and that the business had given the consumer a communication which was likely to mislead them.
- The adjudicator recommended that the business uphold the offer that they had made and install the home charger for the consumer.
- However, the consumer subsequently informed the adjudicator that they had since moved again to another property and this new property did not have the facilities available for the property charger to be installed. At this stage, the consumer was seeking financial compensation equivalent to what the home charger installation would have cost them had it been available in the new property.
- On this point, the adjudicator considered this as a remedy, but gave the opinion that this was not a demonstrable loss suffered by the consumer, and that the contract had been frustrated by the fact that the consumer had moved to a property which could not accommodate home charging facilities.
- Therefore, the adjudicator recommended that the accredited business should provide a written apology for the breach of the Vehicle Sales Code which had occurred.
Conclusion
- The business accepted the proposed outcome, and the consumer did not respond within the required timeframe. As a result, the case was closed.
