The consumer’s issue:
In September 2023, the consumer purchased a brand-new sports car from the manufacturer. Upon delivery, they discovered that the alarm and immobiliser were missing, which formed part of the advertised vehicle specification at the time of sale.
The customer raised this concern with the manufacturer, and they responded by explaining that they could not have them retrofitted, as these systems were not included on UK models due to regional specification variations. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the business did offer the consumer a financial contribution to have the technology fitted by a third party if this was something they would be looking to pursue.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties. As this was a misrepresentation claim, the misrepresentation must be evidenced on three accounts, namely:
1. There was an incorrect representation (i.e. the information provided);
2. The consumer relied on this representation when entering the contract; and
3. There was a loss caused by the misrepresentation.
This set of criteria was met through the customer’s submission of the online advertisement showing the inclusion of an alarm and immobiliser system as standard on the specification list, correspondence indicating the consumer’s reliance on these features, and recognition in the market of the missing equipment.
Having established that specification was missing on delivery, the discrepancy between the advertised and actual specification, contravened the requirement under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must conform to their description. Similarly, it was also established that there was a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code, which states that vehicles must be accurately described as per the specification provided at the time of sale.
Although the arguments of the manufacturer were considered in relation to the regional specification differences to justify the absence of the alarm in UK models, the consumer’s claim was nevertheless upheld, as goods must match their description regardless of regional variations. As a result, the business was set a SMART recommendation by The Motor Ombudsman to amend their specification lists to clearly illustrate such regional differences going forward.
In light of what had happened, the consumer was entitled to a remedy, which could include a rejection, repair or a price reduction in line with the Consumer Rights Act. However, since the consumer sought a repair as a satisfactory resolution to their dispute, a reimbursement of a third-party installation cost was awarded, and the case was closed.
