The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 66-plate hot hatch (registered in October 2016) in February 2017. At the same time, I also purchased a five-year year service plan. But, when I visited the dealership in October 2021, I was told that the I wouldn’t be able to have the car’s fifth service via the plan.
When I queried this, I received a response from the business explaining that the service plan I had purchased applied from the date of the vehicle’s registration, and not from the point that I owned the vehicle.
However, the service plan was clearly marked on the vehicle invoice as being five years in duration. I therefore feel that I have been misled regarding the term of the plan, and as a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to carry out the outstanding fifth service at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We confirm that this consumer purchased the service plan in addition to their vehicle on 1st February 2017.
- The service plan that the consumer had taken out covered the vehicle up to its fifth birthday or to 62,000 miles, whichever came sooner.
- The package however, was not sold or advertised as providing a specific number of services, and all information about this was readily accessible online and provided during the order process.
- In conclusion, the vehicle’s service pack expired on 31st October 2021 on the vehicle’s fifth birthday, and we therefore believe that the consumer benefited from the package in full as explained at the time of purchase.
- We therefore dispute the fact that we are liable to provide any further complimentary services to the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties, and had to consider whether the dealership had been sufficiently clear towards the consumer in respect to their contractual obligations.
- The consumer disputed this, demonstrated by copies of the vehicle order confirmation, the sales invoice and the order form for the service plan.
- In response, the business did not disagree with the fact that the service plan would run for five years, but had pointed out that the term would run from the point of the vehicle’s registration (which in this case was 2016) rather than when the consumer had purchased the vehicle in 2017.
- The business asserted that this information was relayed at the point of sale, and that it was also readily available online.
- The adjudicator reviewed the documentation, but could not identify any evidence to support the dealership’s assertion that this condition had been explained to the consumer, nor was it provided in written form at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator therefore found on the balance of probabilities that the terms and conditions of the service plan had not been made clear to the consumer when they purchased the plan, and found the dealership to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
- As a remedy, the adjudicator made the award that the dealership should cover the cost of the fifth service.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the proposed outcome, and the complaint was subsequently closed as both parties agreed to the resolution.
