The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand-new pick-up truck in April 2017, and in December 2021, I noticed a problem with the rear offside suspension. I therefore booked my car in at a dealership to investigate the issue, and they noticed that the coil spring was missing and would require replacement.
The business indicated that, if the spring hadn’t been absent, they could have sent it back to the manufacturer to see whether its replacement would be covered under warranty. However, as the spring was not present, they were unable to make a claim, meaning the work was fully chargeable to myself.
This didn’t make sense to me, as the spring had obviously broken and fallen off, and I also expressed my concern that this could have potentially caused damage or injury to others.
While I agreed to cover the cost of the spring’s replacement at a cost of nearly £500, I would like the dealership to reimburse me in full as a resolution to my complaint, as I believe that the work should have been carried out under my new car warranty.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Unfortunately, as was explained to the customer, the manufacturer’s guidelines for the submission of a warranty claim for a parts failure requires them to be able to inspect the faulty component to confirm any issues were the result of a manufacturing defect covered by the terms of the new car warranty.
- In this case, as we could not return the spring for inspection, we were unable to submit a warranty claim on the customer’s behalf, meaning they were required to pay the bill for the necessary repairs.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the submissions of both parties and agreed that, while the situation was unfortunate, he didn’t think the dealership had done anything wrong and was satisfied it was simply following the manufacturer’s guidelines for the submission of warranty claims, which were entirely outside of its control.
- As such, the adjudicator explained he was unable to suggest the repairing dealership was obligated to refund the costs the consumer incurred having his coil spring replaced.
Conclusion
- Neither consumer nor the dealership objected to the adjudicator’s findings, and the case was closed.
