The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a 63-plate people carrier in January 2014, and in May 2022, I noticed rust developing on my vehicle’s bonnet. I therefore took it to one of the manufacturer’s franchise dealerships to have the problem looked at, and they informed me that my warranty claim had been turned down by the vehicle manufacturer. The repair bill is in the region of £1,000.
I was very disappointed with their decision, so I informed the dealership that I had taken my car to a manufacturer-approved bodyshop, where they inspected the vehicle and confirmed that the rust was caused by corrosion all along the front edge of the bonnet.
I wanted to know for sure who was responsible for rejecting my claim, so I contacted both the dealership and manufacturer, but unfortunately, I received conflicting answers.
To resolve my dispute, I just want the manufacturer to fix the problem and replace the bonnet under warranty at no cost to myself, especially since a manufacturer-authorised bodyshop said that the bonnet has since perforated as a result of the rust.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have liaised internally with our technical team, and requested a response as to why the cost of repair cannot be covered by our warranty, and highlighted the fact that the consumer deemed the corrosion to be coming from the inside out, and should have been covered by the 12-year anti-perforation policy.
- It has been found that the problem reported is not a perforation issue, but is surface corrosion caused by a breach of the paintwork as a result of an external influence, such as stone chips. Therefore, this type of corrosion is only covered by our three-year paintwork warranty (the consumer’s vehicle is older than this), and our warranty team determined that this issue had been ongoing for some time, and was not reported as soon as it had manifested itself, as per the warranty guidelines.
- To conclude, moisture has entered via the breach, and started to corrode the surface of the panel under the paint. Therefore, this does not fall under our 12-year anti-perforation warranty, meaning the repair cannot be covered on this occasion, and we are unable to provide any further assistance to the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that the cause of the fault was a manufacturing defect covered under the terms of the warranty.
- They also made reference to the fact that the vehicle manufacturer’s responsibilities are outlined under the terms of their warranty, which distinguishes between the coverage provided by the three-year paintwork warranty and the 12 year anti-perforation agreement.
- A critical aspect of the adjudicator’s analysis of the warranty coverage involved interpreting the term ‘internal cavities’ within the context of the anti-perforation warranty.
- Referring to the common understanding of this term, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary – ‘internal’, meaning inside the body, and ‘cavity’, denoting a hole or empty space between two surfaces – the adjudicator inferred that ‘internal cavities’ are concealed spaces within the structure of the vehicle that are not readily visible from the outside.
- The adjudicator emphasised that these spaces typically reside within the body of the vehicle, between panels and layers, excluding surface-level areas. This understanding helped establish the scope of the anti-perforation warranty, which specifically covers rust originating within these concealed spaces, thereby leading to perforation.
- In assessing the consumer’s claim, the adjudicator requested job cards and reviewed photos shared by the consumer. However, based on the available evidence, there was no substantive documentation demonstrating that rust had originated from the internal cavities.
- The dealership’s job cards noted that rust had developed, but did not state that the vehicle had met the requirements under the anti-perforation warranty. Moreover, the photos provided by the consumer displayed surface-level rust, and this did not appear to be developing from the inside out, as covered by the anti-perforation warranty.
- The adjudicator’s decision not to uphold the consumer’s complaint was based on a careful examination of the evidence in conjunction with the common understanding of the term ‘internal cavities,’ aligning with the anti-perforation warranty’s intended coverage. This approach ensured a fair and objective assessment of the warranty claim.
- However, the adjudicator found that the manufacturer did not provide a timely and effective response to the consumer’s complaint, as they did not share this reasoning as part of their initial claim rejection, and had caused unnecessary delays during the appeals process.
- The adjudicator recommended further training for the manufacturer’s authorised dealerships to accurately communicate their claim decisions in the first instance.
Conclusion:
- The vehicle manufacturer accepted the adjudicator’s decision. The consumer did not respond to the case, so it was closed.
