The consumer’s issue:
“In December 2016, I purchased an ex-demonstrator premium sports car, which was advertised as having 18-inch alloys. Therefore, I assumed this meant that the vehicle was fitted with this size of wheel when it was built.
However, in 2019, I went to trade in the car, and I discovered that it was originally fitted with 20-inch alloys at the factory and that the wheels had been given to another customer. I checked the certificate of authenticity I received shortly after my purchase of the vehicle, and this confirmed that the car should have come with 20-inch alloys.
Although this was an ex-demonstrator, it was brand new as far as I was concerned, and the dealership should have told me that the alloys on the car had been changed, and were not the same as the manufacturer’s specification for this model.
I’ve had two dealerships value the car at a loss of £4,000 because the current alloys do not match the original build. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to provide me a refund equivalent to the loss in value (i.e. £4,000) as I believe the car was mis-sold to me.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer purchased a used vehicle as advertised, with the specification they desired, and at a price in line with that in the market at the time. We therefore consider this to be an “informed decision” by them to buy this specific car.
- It is not unusual for a vehicle to have a specification that differs from that listed on the original factory build sheet. We acknowledge that the alloys on the car were changed before the sale, and they remain genuine manufacturer parts.
- Alloy wheels can impact the value of a vehicle, but we have not been provided with any evidence from the customer to show the car’s valuation has decreased by £4,000.
- We have offered to value the car ourselves and buy it back, but this offer was declined.
- Whilst we remain happy to inspect the vehicle and provide the consumer with a price, we are not looking to pay any compensation due to the wheels being a different size from the original build.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that, under the Vehicle Sales Code, the business had to ensure they provided the customer with any other information that could affect their purchase decision.
- Despite the alloy wheel specification being different, the adjudicator considered the evidence provided by both parties and found that the vehicle was sold as advertised, with the correct wheel size.
- He felt that the consumer would have paid a fair price for the vehicle they purchased, with 18-inch alloy wheels fitted, and there was no information to demonstrate any loss of value caused by this.
- Therefore, as the business was not found to be in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, the customer’s complaint was not upheld, as the adjudicator deemed the car had been purchased as advertised.
- However, the dealership was directed to make an apology in light of what had happened.
- The consumer disagreed with the adjudicator’s assessment of their complaint and asked for a final decision from an ombudsman to be made.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman came to a similar conclusion as the adjudicator.
- She said the car was an ex-demonstrator, not a new factory order, and was supplied as advertised with 18-inch alloys.
- Furthermore, she said no discussion had taken place at the time of sale about the alloys, and she did not believe there was a requirement for the dealership to disclose that the wheels had been changed.
- She explained that the certificate of authenticity the consumer had received after the purchase showed what ‘optional extras’ had been fitted to the car, and what it had initially been supplied with from the factory.
- She said 20-inch alloys were fitted to the car at this point, but this wasn’t a ‘standard’ factory fit, rather it was an ‘additional’ option which was chosen for the vehicle.
- The ombudsman explained that the 20-inch alloys would have come at an additional cost and likely increased the value of the car when it was initially purchased.
- Nevertheless, there was no evidence to show that the price the consumer had paid wasn’t reflective of the price for that car with 18-inch alloys or that the increased price was passed on to the consumer when sold.
- The ombudsman went on to say that the customer hadn’t provided any evidence to show that the car had been mis-sold or that they had suffered a financial loss.
- Furthermore, she said the dealership had offered to value the car and buy it back, and this was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.
- As a result, the ombudsman did not believe the dealership needed to take any further action in terms of an award.
Conclusion:
- As a final decision was made, signalling the end of The Motor Ombudsman’s process, the case was closed.
