The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 13-plate compact crossover SUV with 45,000 miles on the clock for around £6,500 in September 2020 from a dealership. Shortly after buying it, and only having covered 3,000 miles, the car started to judder, and the gear changes were jerky. I was told that this was a normal characteristic for a semi-automatic, and so any issues were quickly dismissed. I then contacted the seller a second time to have the issue looked at, but once again, no investigation took place.
Shortly after, the car broke down, but the business said they could not repair the vehicle for at least three weeks and, as my partner who uses the car is a care worker, it was not possible to wait this long to get the vehicle back on the road. I therefore had the car taken to the next closest franchise dealership (which did not belong to the seller’s dealer network), where they diagnosed the fault as excessive travel in the flywheel, and that there was a pre-existing defect due to the hard life that the vehicle had been subject to before buying it.
I paid £2,000 to have the vehicle repaired in just four days, and I sent the invoice, which excludes other transport and hire car expenses (another £400), along with video evidence of the defective flywheel to the selling dealership. However, their position remained unchanged. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for refund of the cost of the repair that I have incurred.”
The accredited business’ response:
- There is no record of any works being carried out by our business on the customer’s vehicle.
- The claim that the particular dealership was unable to accommodate a repair, and that this was the reason why the work was not carried out in our network, is not something that we can check back on.
- However, we would advise that there are a number of dealerships in the area that could have been contacted prior to any authority being provided for a third party to carry out repairs.
- We also noted that, although the consumer contacted the selling dealership within a few weeks of purchase regarding the issue with their vehicle, the subsequent repairs were not actually carried out for another seven months.
- As such, the consumer had the burden of proving the issue was present at the point of sale.
- Given this information, we do not agree that we are responsible for covering the cost of the repairs to the consumer’s vehicle by the third party business, and are unable to provide any further assistance on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator noted the invoice for £2,000 from the third party, which showed that the vehicle experienced faults which required a repair.
- However, they also explained that no evidence was submitted by the consumer which supported the fact that they notified the dealership that their vehicle was experiencing a fault within a few weeks of purchase. Therefore, the adjudicator could not agree that the evidence submitted supported this claim.
- The adjudicator also explained that the consumer had not given the seller the opportunity to rectify the fault, but then authorised a third party dealership to complete the repairs.
- The paperwork prior to the sale showed that the car had been serviced with no apparent issues, whilst the vehicle also passed its MOT.
- Due to the length of time that had passed before the issue was flagged by the consumer (seven months after purchase), the evidential burden of demonstrating that the cause of the fault was present from the point of sale, reverted to the vehicle owner.
- In summary, the evidence available did not indicate that the seller had failed in their obligation to ensure the vehicle was legally roadworthy prior to presenting it for sale.
- Whilst the adjudicator accepted that it was disappointing that the consumer had to pay for expensive repairs seven months from the point of purchase, no technical evidence was submitted to show that the vehicle did not meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, considering the car’s age, mileage and the price paid for it.
- With regards to the fact that the consumer had to pay for hire cars, the adjudicator pointed out that a business does not have a legal obligation to provide a courtesy vehicle (even if they had carried out the repairs), nor does it have to accept liability for the use of rental vehicles. Therefore, no breach of the Code had occurred in this respect.
- Based on the facts presented, there was insufficient evidence submitted to suggest that the business should be held liable to make any financial awards to the consumer, meaning the complaint could not be upheld in their favour.
The consumer’s response to the adjudication outcome:
- The business accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer rejected it stating that the issue with the vehicle had been raised several times with the business in the first six months of ownership, but the seller had dismissed these concerns.
- Additionally, the consumer noted that the business had been given the chance to complete the repairs, but it could only do so after a prolonged delay of over three weeks.
- To get the vehicle back on the road for daily use quickly, the consumer said that they took the vehicle elsewhere, and it was repaired inside four days.
- As such, the consumer asked for a final decision from an ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman noted that the consumer had raised a potential issue with the business on two occasions within the first six months of ownership, but the selling dealership had not responded to these concerns.
- Additionally, based on the evidence presented, the ombudsman concluded that it was more likely than not that the issues reported were present at the point of sale, considering that the consumer had raised a potential concern on two occasions, and had completed limited mileage before the problems occurred.
- Furthermore, the ombudsman noted that the business had an obligation to conduct any repairs within a reasonable time period. As such, they needed to assess whether the three-week wait would be considered reasonable in the circumstances.
- Given the urgent need for the vehicle to be repaired, and the fact that another business completed the work inside four days, the ombudsman concluded that a three-week wait to work on the car was not reasonable.
- As such, the ombudsman concluded that the consumer had acted appropriately in taking the vehicle elsewhere to be repaired and for seeking a refund from the seller for the work that had been carried out.
- On this basis, the ombudsman upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and stated that they were entitled to a refund of £2,000 spent to get their car back on the road.
- Once this reimbursement had taken place, the ombudsman was satisfied this would put the consumer back into the position they would have otherwise been in with their vehicle.
Conclusion:
- The consumer agreed with the decision, and the business was informed about the refund of £2,000 due to the vehicle owner.
