The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a 64-plate SUV in January 2018 with 22,300 miles on the clock from a dealership, and serviced the car at the business for three years. During this time, there were no issues until towards the end of this period in December 2020 when the engine became noisier, and the oil consumption increased.
No oil engine management lights ever came on as a warning and, one day, the car wouldn’t start. Once the vehicle had been recovered to the dealer, I was advised it needed a new engine. I subsequently found out that the manufacturer put the wrong pistons in the engines of a batch of the vehicles produced the same year as my car, leading to excessive oil consumption and eventual engine failure. The dealership said that my vehicle was unaffected by this, although this error had occurred in production.
I also discovered that there were two service stamps missing from my service book that should have had a full history. The dealer explained the services were done, but the book had not been stamped.
I was told I would have to pay £500 for a test to see what happened to the car, and while this would be covered by a goodwill gesture, I would still have to pay for the engine. I left the car at the business, and now they are asking for £5,087.45 from me. As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the vehicle to be repaired free of charge, as I do not want to have to pay for the engine replacement.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The manufacturer’s warranty expired prior to the SUV being purchased, and the extended warranty supplied with the vehicle would have ended in January 2019.
- The concern with the vehicle did not become apparent until December 2020, which was almost three years after purchase, and two years after the expiry of any warranty. As a result, any contribution towards the repair is made on a goodwill basis at the discretion of the manufacturer based on the age and mileage of the vehicle.
- At the time of breakdown, the vehicle was six years old, and had covered 72,846 miles.
- We do not have a record of the service history prior to sale, but note the intervals between the services of 18,000 and 20,000 miles were much greater than the specified 12,000 miles the manufacturer required. The vehicle was also overdue a service when the breakdown occurred.
- Our position is that, owing to the passage of time from the point of sale to the fault emerging with the vehicle being so long after purchase, we as the selling dealership should not be held liable for the customer’s costs.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides, which included an account of events by both parties, and documentation, such as the vehicle order form, the sales invoice, diagnostic history, and job cards.
- The adjudicator explained that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show, not just that there was a fault with the vehicle, but that it was more likely than not that the issue was present at the point of sale. However, no independent and documented technical evidence supported this.
- The adjudicator also noted that, considering the age and mileage covered by the vehicle at the time of the engine failure, it could not be determined that it was not of satisfactory quality or that it was not fit for purpose from the time of sale.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not find a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code by the business, and made the decision not to uphold the case in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- The case was closed following no further response from the consumer after an allocated period of time. The business accepted the decision made.
