The consumer’s issue:

The customer bought a used ’67-plate hatchback for around £10,000 in May 2021, and around a year later, it broke down shortly after the car was serviced. Following the vehicle’s recovery to a dealership, the problem was diagnosed as being a fuel pump failure, and the consumer was told that the repair would initially be covered under the warranty.

However, a week later, the dealer got back in touch to inform the customer that there was evidence of petrol and diesel in the fuel tank, so the work would now not be paid-for under the warranty, much to the frustration of the consumer as they said this had not happened.

The customer said the dealership had not followed the correct process to diagnose the mis-fueling, as they did not provide a report with the fueling test results. After this, the warranty company organised their own independent inspection to assess the damage to the vehicle. This concluded that the fuel pump damage was caused by mis-fueling. Therefore, the warranty company upheld their position and the customer’s claim was declined.

The consumer believed that the cost of repairs (around £8,000), i.e. to replace the entire fuel system, were still eligible to be covered in line with the terms of the warranty, and also claimed not to have seen the inspection report. The customer did not believe the findings were accurate, as the inspection was completed several months after the initial failure had occurred.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and explained that the warranty provider relies on the opinion of a technician to decide whether the claim is upheld or not. In this case, the technician reported that the fault was related to misfuelling by the customer, and there was no conflicting view of this, meaning the claim was declined correctly in line with the terms of the agreement.

Although the consumer’s complaint was not upheld, the ombudsman did explain to the warranty provider that they should have obtained evidence about the incorrect fuel being used as part of their claim assessment. Similarly, they should have provided a copy of the independent inspection report to the customer when this was requested.

If a customer’s claim is declined for reasons for which they are responsible, or the fault, in this case putting incorrect fuel into the vehicle, then they are entitled to ask and receive evidence showing this. This will also prevent disputes being escalated to The Motor Ombudsman.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence presented, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no breach of the Vehicle Warranty Code was found. The case was closed.