Faulty heated seat

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a used ’67-plate estate with 32,000 miles on the clock from a dealership in October 2020, and a month later, I informed the business that one of the heated seats was not working properly. I followed the terms of the warranty, and despite the seller knowing that the car had been repaired by a member of the manufacturer’s franchise network, they refused to pay for the labour (£330) to repair the vehicle or to cover the cost of a hire car (£18), despite paying for the cost of the part (£123.96).

My complaint is that the retailer knowingly allowed me to begin the repair at another garage, and on the morning that they started the work, they initially chose not to cover any of the costs of repair unless I returned the car to their workshop some 90 miles away. To travel that distance whilst there was a national lockdown in force would have been a breach of the law, and I could have been fined.

As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to provide me with a full refund for the cost of labour (£330) and £18 in vehicle hire costs that I incurred, so that I am not left out of pocket.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We do not accept that the customer is entitled to a free-of-charge repair or a refund of the labour charge from a third-party dealership.
  • Prior to the consumer taking delivery of the vehicle in October 2020, we carried out pre-sale checks, which confirmed there were no problems with the car or the heated seats.
  • The customer also requested a second copy of the warranty booklet, and this was supplied to them.
  • In February 2021, the customer contacted us about an issue with one of the heated seats not working correctly after having informed us that the problem had materialised in November 2020.
  • The customer was advised that the vehicle could be looked at, but due to COVID-19 restrictions, they were unable to attend the dealership, but we said that we would honour this offer once the restrictions had lifted.
  • The consumer took their vehicle to an independent garage outside of our group, which was local for an inspection and the repair of the heated seat. During the call, the customer requested that we cover the cost of the repairs.
  • As far as we are aware, the manufacturer declined two warranty claims made by the customer for the heated seat repair. However, we are not party to these discussions and are unable to provide any further information.
  • We initially explained to the customer that, as the vehicle was repaired elsewhere, we would not cover the costs.
  • However, we reconsidered and agreed to cover the cost of the part as a gesture of goodwill.
  • We declined from covering the labour costs, as the customer went to a local garage, so we were not given an opportunity to inspect the vehicle, repair the fault, plus the labour costs exceeded those that we would have charged ordinarily to carry out the work. In addition, the problem was clearly not a manufacturing defect, or the repair would have been covered under the terms of the warranty.
  • The customer therefore raised a formal complaint in relation to the component failure and the labour costs. However, they have not provided any evidence to support their claim that any issues with the heated seats arose prior to February 2021. For that reason, we can only conclude that they were working correctly before then, and were therefore not present at the point of sale in October 2020.
  • As a result, we will not be covering the cost of labour and the hire car charge requested by the consumer.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The adjudicator explained that the business had the evidential burden of showing that there had not been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
  • This is because the faults were found within the first six months from the point of sale. Therefore, the presumption was that the issue was there when the consumer purchased the vehicle in October 2020.
  • The adjudicator considered whether the evidence submitted supported the cause of the heated seat failure not being present from the point of sale.
  • The business explained the vehicle preparation invoice supported their position that the driver heated seat cushion was not faulty at the time of sale.
  • However, whilst the adjudicator accepted there might not be any mention of the heated seats being faulty on the checklist, there was insufficient evidence submitted by the business showing the seats were actually checked.
  • The adjudicator was not provided with the vehicle preparation checklist or confirmation that the checklist included looking at the condition of the heated seats.
  • As a result, they could not agree that the evidence submitted supported the fact that the business had checked the heated seats were operating without a fault at the point of sale.
  • The adjudicator equally acknowledged that the business was not provided with an opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to the completion of repairs by a third-party garage.
  • Nevertheless, they were satisfied that the business had been put on notice that the seat cushion experienced a fault, but there was insufficient evidence to support the fact that the cause of the fault was not present when the customer bought the car.
  • In addition, the business was aware the customer was experiencing difficulties going into their premises. If the customer continued to experience difficulties, it was always more likely than not that the repair work would have to have been outsourced to a third party.
  • In the event the customer could not travel to the business’s premises, they would not have had any option but agree to the costs quoted by the third-party repairer, which included their labour charge.
  • The adjudicator was satisfied another technician assessing the vehicle confirmed that it experienced a fault with the heated cushion. The fair outcome would therefore be to ask the business to offer the customer a refund of £330 for the labour charges.
  • The adjudicator explained the business had no legal obligation to provide a courtesy vehicle, meaning a failure to provide the customer with one, did not constitute a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code. As a result, the business had no legal obligation to offer the customer a refund of the vehicle hire costs that they may have incurred.
  • Consequently, the adjudicator partially upheld the complaint in favour of the customer, and asked the business to award the consumer a full refund of the labour charges totalling £330.

Conclusion

  • Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the business agreed to refund the consumer as recommended by the adjudicator. As a resolution had been reached, the case was closed.