The consumer’s issue:
“I saw a video and test drove a used car before putting down a deposit at a dealership. When I came to collect it, it was raining heavily, but I was assured that everything was OK with it. However, when I was washing the car a few days later, I noticed several of the panels were misaligned. I brought the car back to the dealership to be inspected, but they weren’t able to find any mechanical faults and subsequently told me that they wouldn’t accept a rejection for cosmetic issues. The business initially offered me a replacement vehicle but this had several faults with it, so I refused this and asked for a refund. I’m therefore looking to reject the car under my consumer rights.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer collected the vehicle, and signed the paperwork to say he was happy with it at the point of handover.
- Around two weeks later, the consumer got in touch to tell us that there were cosmetic imperfections on the car.
- The customer brought the vehicle back and we explained that as it was a used vehicle with 27,000 miles on the clock, it could have some issues.
- As a gesture of goodwill, we tried to put the consumer into a replacement vehicle, but this was refused.
- We don’t think that a rejection is valid as no mechanical issues were found. We have checked over every fault that the consumer reported, and have been unable to confirm any issues with the car.
- The only repair that was required was an adjustment to the doors.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator didn’t uphold the customer’s complaint.
- She explained to the consumer that a vehicle has to be of satisfactory quality, but that this will take into account the age and mileage of the car, as it would be unreasonable to expect a three-year-old car to be of the same standard as a brand new one.
- The dealership was unable to fault the vehicle and there was nothing to indicate there was any kind of mechanical issue with the car.
- It was accepted that an adjustment to the door was required, but this was a minor issue and rejection felt disproportionate considering the issues that had been raised.
- The adjudicator did acknowledge that a rejection does not have to be because of a mechanical issue, and can be because of something cosmetic, but this wasn’t considered to be a valid remedy in this case.
- The adjudicator’s outcome was rejected by the consumer and was referred for a final decision by the ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator and did not believe the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality taking into account its age and mileage.
- She also noted that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 does not allow consumers to complain about something which could have been observed during a reasonable inspection of the vehicle.
- Many of the more cosmetic issues would most likely have been visible during the test drive, even if it was accepted that a proper inspection could not take place at the handover.
- It felt reasonable for the dealership to have a look at the car and adjust the door and rectify any mechanical issues if they were diagnosed.
- A rejection by the customer was not considered to be a proportionate award at this point in time.
Conclusion:
- The dealership was asked by The Motor Ombudsman to inspect the car again, but a refund was not awarded to the consumer.
