Missing tray tables

The consumer’s issue:

“I was searching for a used car, and I found a diesel GT that was suitable for my needs, and which had the specification I was seeking. I therefore got in touch with the dealership, and they sent me a video of the vehicle, as I lived over 200 miles away from the business. Based on this footage, I paid the deposit by card and travelled to the dealer the next day to complete the paperwork and to collect the car.

The sales representative met me in the showroom and told me that the vehicle was ready. I was not given an opportunity to inspect the car prior to signing the agreement and it was only when this had been completed, and I was going through the handover, that I noticed there were no folding tray tables. I was told that this feature was only available on higher spec models and, as I had made a long journey and needed to get home, I didn’t make anything more of it.

I then got in touch with the salesperson and they tried to put the responsibility on me saying that I hadn’t noted this in the video he had sent, and that it was an optional accessory. I checked with the manufacturer and they said the same thing and suggested I contacted my local dealership to have this part installed at a cost as they could be retrofitted. I did some research and found out that the folding tray tables were in fact standard on all GT models.

At the end of the day, I was under the impression the car would come with folding tray tables and I would like compensation to the value of £200 for the fact that they were missing. I was essentially forced into buying a car that didn’t meet my requirements.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • This customer was told from the beginning that the car did not have the folding tray tables for the back of the car, and was even sent a video to show this.
  • The consumer was given the opportunity to look over the car before signing any paperwork and paying the final balance.
  • After taking the vehicle, they were advised by friends/family to challenge us on the tables and demanded we pay for new tables for their car.
  • To foster good relations, we ordered the new tables and the customer said they would collect them, which we thought was strange, as they lived over 200 miles away.
  • However, the consumer did not collect them, and after several attempts to contact them, the folding tray tables were returned to the parts department.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that there was a dispute between the consumer and the dealership as to whether the customer had been given an opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to purchase. The evidence provided by both parties on this issue was their recollection of the events as they happened on the day, and the contents of verbal conversations.
  • The adjudicator found that he was not able to rule in either party’s favour on this point, as there was no documentation to support the business’ or the consumer’s position, and there was no reason to doubt their honesty.
  • However, the adjudicator explained that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that they had been misled by the business, and he could not see enough evidence to show that this was more likely than not what had happened.
  • The adjudicator also noted that the consumer had noticed the tables were not included with the vehicle and, in both versions of events, took the car away anyway. Had this been fundamental to the customer’s decision to purchase the vehicle, it is likely he would have pushed the issue further, despite the inconvenience this may have caused.
  • The adjudicator pointed out that the Consumer Rights Act’s protections did not extend to situations where a defect was brought to a consumer’s attention or could have been reasonably identified during an examination, and the customer still proceeded with the purchase.
  • Therefore, the adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion:

  • Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.