The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new 70-plate luxury saloon in September 2020, and since that time, I have been back to the dealership on six different occasions due to an unexplained increase in fuel consumption. The car usually delivers between 40 to 50 mpg, but when the fault is apparent, this drops to between 12 and 18 mpg. The car also selects an incorrect gear and will not change out of it.
Video evidence of each of these faults has been sent to the dealership, but they have been unable to replicate them or identify the problem. The vehicle manufacturer is not accepting that there is a fault, yet still wish to replace the turbo.
As I’ve already given the business several opportunities to repair the car without the problem being fixed, I no longer wish to keep it and would like to return the vehicle for a full refund.”
The accredited business’ response:
- While we have attempted to replicate the faults described by the customer, and consulted with the manufacturer’s technical team, we have not been able to identify any problems with the car.
- The customer is correct in stating that we have suggested replacing the car’s turbocharger in an effort to repair the issues reported, but as we’ve been unable to identify any fault with this component, there is no guarantee this work will resolve the issues that have been reported.
- As we have been unable to identify any fault with the car, we do not think that rejection of the car is appropriate.
- Third-party investigation may be the appropriate course of action.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, and while he was satisfied the dealership had taken appropriate steps to identify the cause of the problems the customer reported, he noted that the car’s stored fault data showed that there was indeed an intermittent issue that was significantly reducing the car’s fuel efficiency.
- In view of this, and the fact the consumer had presented the car on numerous occasions over an extended period for investigation by the dealership, the adjudicator was satisfied there was a yet to be identified fault with the car.
- As the dealership had already had several opportunities to complete a lasting repair of these issues, and The Motor Ombudsman possessed no evidence that showed the fault arose sometime post-sale, the adjudicator was satisfied the issues present on the car were there from the point of sale and sufficient to render it not of satisfactory quality.
- As a result, the adjudicator upheld the customer’s complaint and recommended the dealership accept rejection of the car for a refund less a deduction for its use.
Conclusion:
- The car was once again presented to the dealership for investigation, and for the repair of the faults highlighted.
- Unfortunately, despite the dealership’s efforts, they were unable to complete a lasting repair of the issues, and ultimately agreed to the adjudicator’s recommendation of rejection, providing a refund that was acceptable to the consumer. The case was closed.
