The consumer’s issue:
“In August 2019, I bought a used 17-plate convertible from a dealership with around 45,000 miles on the clock. Initially, I had no intention of buying this type of car due to the possibility of leaks occurring, but the business assured me they would take care of any issues under the vehicle’s warranty.
However, ever since I purchased the car, the roof has been leaking like a sieve. I took it back to the seller multiple times, but they never fixed it, and now they’re telling me I would need to pay for the repairs. The staff have also been rude, have ignored my calls, and spoke to me as if I was a fool. One staff member claimed I should just get over it because these things happen!
As I have spent £285 a month on a car that leaks like a sieve, even all over me when I am driving, I am looking to reject it.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We booked the consumer’s car into our workshop to inspect the water leak. However, the tests conducted did not reveal any issues. The roof seals were also cleaned of dirt and packed out on the body to make a tighter seal.
- The consumer complained to their finance company about the ongoing leak issue and requested for a rejection of the vehicle. As a result, the finance company arranged for an independent investigation to be carried out, and turned down the consumer’s request to reject the car based on there being no sign of any water ingress.
- A month later, the consumer came back to us to explain that leaks were still occurring. On this occasion, we used a pressure washer and did find a small leak around the front roof weather seal, but this may have been a red herring, because this measure did not simulate normal weather conditions.
- As a final goodwill gesture, we replaced the front roof’s weather seal, and since then, we did not hear back from the customer regarding any other water ingress.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that there was a fault with their car, and that it had been present since the point of sale.
- The consumer had provided photographs of the vehicle’s interior, which showed it was significantly wet, thereby indicating there may be a leak present.
- However, the business had provided a copy of the independent inspection report that was paid for by the consumer’s finance provider. This highlighted the fact that numerous tests were conducted on the vehicle, both when stationary and during an extensive road test. In all instances, they were unable to find any evidence of water ingress, and concluded that there were no faults with the vehicle.
- The adjudicator then explained the difference in weight that evidence carries. Due to the technical nature of the report, in addition to the fact it is considered be independent and impartial, the findings of such a document would have more credence than anything claimed by either party.
- The adjudicator found, based on the balance of probability, it was likely that there was no fault with the vehicle. Nevertheless, it was noted that the consumer had provided photographs of a wet interior, but the findings of the technical report supplied by the business held more weight in the adjudicator’s consideration.
- Therefore, the vehicle was found not to be defective, meaning the consumer’s complaint was not upheld.
- The adjudicator also commented on the alleged dismissiveness of the business. They explained that they were not present during any conversations between the consumer and the seller, and therefore could not confirm what or how anything was said.
- The consumer had also not provided any evidence showing that the business had treated her poorly or unprofessionally, and thus this element of their dispute was also not upheld in their favour.
Conclusion
- The business responded and agreed with these findings. However, as the consumer did not make contact with The Motor Ombudsman following the decision, the case was closed.
