The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased my vehicle from the dealership in May 2015, and the car had been shipped straight from storage to the dealership. A few months after I bought it, I contacted the dealership as orange dots had appeared on the paintwork. They had been present for some time, but at this point, they were significant in quantity. I was told by one of the sales staff at the dealership that there had been a problem with some of these vehicles when they had been shipped to the UK as they had not been adequately covered, and brake dust had subsequently become embedded within the paintwork.
The salesman later denied saying this, and stated the marks were from tree sap, and when they were covered by the dealership in a thick white substance and rubbed, this removed the marks. However, shortly after undergoing this treatment, the dots started to appear again. On this occasion, the dealership booked the car in to be ‘clay barred’ to resolve the problem, but they blamed the occurrence of the dots on where I parked my car. Unfortunately, the dots came back again extremely quickly and the car was booked in again at the dealership for another treatment and was ready to collect four days later.
In between my car being dropped off and being ready for collection, the dealership lost my key. This meant that another key had to be ordered and I had to wait over a week to collect my vehicle. However, when I went to collect it, the spots were still there, and again, the dealership blamed it on where I park my car. I believe the issue was present at the point of sale and the dealership was aware of this but will not take responsibility.”
The accredited business’ response (the vehicle manufacturer):
- We were not informed of the problem with the marks on the vehicle until the vehicle was approximately 13 months old.
- An external expert deemed the marks to be the result of light fall out and the application of a clay bar which was designed to remove foreign particles from the paint. The customer did not mention any marks were still present when she collected the vehicle.
- There was no charge for the repair, but the customer was informed that if the vehicle is parked near a train line that the dots would likely happen again.
- Around nine months after the first treatment, the car was brought back with the same problem. The vehicle was treated with an acidic wash and another clay bar, which was at no charge to the customer.
- Given the time frame between the sale and the first report of the issue, and the period between the first treatment and the second, we believe that the occurrence of the dots is the result of the vehicle being parked near a train line and are unwilling to offer any further remedies to the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under the Consumer Rights Act and The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code of Practice, the consumer must be able to show that the fault was present at the point of sale within the first six months of buying the car.
- The paperwork provided to The Motor Ombudsman showed that the issue was not reported until 13 months after the sale of the vehicle, and that the issue which occurred after the first treatment was not reported again until another nine months later.
- There was no other information which demonstrated that the vehicle had these marks at the point of sale and the consumer had already had at least two free attempts at repair.
Conclusion:
- The adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint as there was no evidence which demonstrated that the marks were present at the point of sale.
- Based on the information provided, it seemed that the most likely cause of the marks was external influence based on the vehicle being parked in close proximity to a busy train line.
- The case was closed and did not go to a final decision.
