The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new large premium SUV in March 2020. Two years later, in November 2022, I noticed white marks appearing on the bonnet, which were increasing in size over time.
I therefore took my car back to the selling dealership, and they arranged an inspection at their bodyshop, and they seemed to indicate there was an issue with the paintwork, and implied that it would be covered by the three-year manufacturer’s warranty, which was valid until March 2023. The report clearly indicated that the paint was blistering on the bonnet and that it was not an issue caused by any kind of external influence.
The repair was estimated to cost in the region of £1,500, so the dealership submitted a claim to the manufacturer to have the bonnet rectified under warranty, but this was declined, as they had a contrasting opinion, and deemed the issue to not be a manufacturing defect.
As I did not believe this to be the case, I commissioned my own independent inspection from an engineering expert, and their findings highlighted that the damage was not caused by external influence, and that it was likely that the defects were embedded within the paint applied by the factory. Therefore, contrary to the evidence supplied by the vehicle manufacturer, they could see no reason why the repairs should not be covered under warranty.
As a fair resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the repairs to be undertaken at no cost to myself, and for the £300 fee for the independent report to also be reimbursed”.
The accredited business’ response:
- In January 2023, the consumer contacted our customer relationship team to raise a complaint regarding paintwork concerns on the bonnet of their vehicle.
- The car was then taken to one of our dealerships for investigation, which confirmed that the cause of the markings on the bonnet was paint surface damage, indicative of an outside influence that affected the paintwork.
- Therefore, we are not able to cover the repairs of the vehicle under our warranty, as it cannot be classed as a manufacturing defect.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the cause of the fault with the paintwork was due to a build defect covered under the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty agreement.
- The adjudicator noted that the consumer’s claim had been declined, but could not see within the terms of the warranty any mention of what the manufacturer considered to be an ‘outside influence’, nor had they specified what they believed the external cause to be in relation to the paint blistering on the consumer’s vehicle. Therefore, the adjudicator could not apply much weight to this evidence.
- The adjudicator therefore reviewed the reports provided by both the dealership that inspected the consumer’s vehicle, as well as that supplied by the engineering expert. Both of these documents concluded that there was no external influence that would have caused the paint to blister, thereby meeting the terms of the vehicle manufacturer’s paint surface warranty.
- In light of the evidence presented, the adjudicator therefore upheld the consumer’s complaint, and requested that the vehicle manufacturer reimbursed the full cost of the report, and carried out a respray of the bonnet at no charge.
The response to the adjudication outcome:
- The consumer accepted the adjudication outcome, but as the manufacturer did not respond within the allotted timeframe, the case was passed to an ombudsman for a legally binding final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, including the terms of the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty, their response, and the reports from the dealership and independent expert.
- Based on what had been presented, the ombudsman came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator, and was satisfied that the damage was most likely to have been caused by a manufacturing defect, rather than being due to an external cause.
- The ombudsman therefore made an award for the damage to be repaired at the manufacturer’s expense, and also decided that the cost of the independent report should be refunded to the consumer.
Conclusion:
- The consumer accepted the final decision, and the case was closed.
