The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 14-plate sports car in December 2017. At the time of purchase, the dealership advised me that they would be completing an MOT prior to my collection, and this was confirmed in the documents I was supplied by them. In fact, the documents all suggested the MOT would expire in December 2018.
In November 2018, the road tax on the car was due, but when I tried to tax the vehicle, it wouldn’t let me, as it said the car had no valid MOT. I contacted the dealership about this and, upon checking their records, they found that the MOT had expired in April 2018, not November 2018, as I was previously informed. They agreed to MOT the car for me, but I’m not happy, as I had been driving the car around for seven months with no MOT and without valid insurance. The consequence of using the car without a valid MOT could have had a major detrimental impact on my career and financial status.
I also suffered some bodywork damage on the car while it was parked at the airport, but I couldn’t claim to have this repaired, as I discovered I didn’t have an MOT, and my insurance refused to pay out. These repairs cost me £1,900. I am therefore looking for the dealership to explain why this issue happened and compensate me for the accidental repairs which I couldn’t claim through my insurance.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We can’t explain why an MOT wasn’t completed when we sold the car.
- The documents all suggest that it was done, so either the agent forgot to register this, or it wasn’t carried out.
- We have apologised to the consumer about this and understood their concerns. We completed an MOT free of charge as soon as they informed us about this.
- We explained that not having a valid MOT for those seven months wouldn’t have any future impact, and said that we would be happy to test the car again.
- In terms of the accidental repairs, the customer did not provide us with any evidence of the damage, repairs or that she’s communicated to her insurance provider about this, so we would not be looking to cover those costs.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator noted that the business was not disputing the fact that the consumer had been given the wrong information at the time of purchase, and that this was therefore a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
- However, she said the dealership had done what she would have expected it to have done by offering and carrying out a complimentary MOT.
- The adjudicator said she wasn’t supplied with any evidence of financial loss, so she couldn’t make a monetary award for this.
- The consumer disagreed with the adjudicator’s findings, and asked for an ombudsman to review the case.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman said that the documents the consumer had been provided showed that an MOT would be completed. As a result, it was reasonable for the customer to rely on this information as there was no reason for them to doubt it.
- The ombudsman acknowledged that driving without a valid MOT could have had severe consequences. However, she said she could only consider what had happened rather than what could have happened.
- She noted the dealership didn’t know why the MOT wasn’t completed, and therefore there wasn’t any further explanation that they could provide.
- The ombudsman said the dealership had completed an MOT at no cost to the consumer as soon as they were informed of the oversight and this was the correct thing to have done.
- However, the ombudsman also said that the consumer had been paying motor insurance for her car for seven months and it was more likely than not that the insurance for this period would have been invalid. So, to put things right, she recommended the dealership reimburse the cost of the insurance premiums the consumer had paid during this time.
- The ombudsman noted the comments the consumer had made regarding accidental repairs. However, she said the consumer had been given multiple opportunities to provide evidence of the damage, explain exactly when it occurred and what repairs were carried out, but this information was never supplied.
- The ombudsman also said it would be difficult to uphold on this point, as the consumer wouldn’t be able to evidence the state of her car prior to these accidental repairs. So, she didn’t award any financial reimbursement on this point.
- The ombudsman therefore only awarded the consumer seven months’ worth of car insurance payments due to the insurance being invalidated by the lack of MOT.
Conclusion:
- Neither party responded to the final decision, and the case was closed.
