The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 70-plate supermini from a car supermarket in July 2021, and on Christmas Eve that same year, the car broke down, and it was recovered to my mother’s home. The day after Boxing Day, the vehicle manufacturer’s breakdown service came out, but were unable to recover the car to the brand’s nearest franchise dealership. This meant that I had to hire a car at a cost of £828 for 10 days until my own vehicle could go into the dealer for repairs on 12th January 2022.
Due to a one-year delay in the replacement parts being available, my car stayed at the dealership, during which time I received no updates at all from the business, despite making multiple phone calls to try to get an answer.
After the work was finally carried out, and I collected my car on 5th January 2023, I asked for the documentation to have a written record of the repairs that were conducted to my car. However, the dealership said they were unable to provide it due to data security issues, and the manufacturer has also not provided any paperwork. At the time, I also raised concerns about the depreciation in the value of my car, but they denied my request to trade it in.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for an apology for the poor service received, and an acceptance that the lack of communication, which caused me stress and anxiety. I am also seeking a detailed and documented account of all the repairs that were carried out on the vehicle, with a list of the parts that were replaced, and when they were fitted.
I would also be keen to receive compensation for all the phone calls I made, as these were often made using a mobile phone.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We offered the consumer a £350 contribution towards the cost of hiring a car for the 10-day period, which equated to the maximum we would pay if we had rented a vehicle during this period.
- However, this offer was declined by the customer, as they wanted the full amount of £828 to be reimbursed.
- We, as the vehicle manufacturer, would not normally provide a hire vehicle if the customer’s car was not at one of our dealerships having an issue diagnosed.
- In this case, the issue was not a manufacturing defect, so what we provided was a gesture of goodwill.
- After a significant delay waiting on the various parts to complete the repair, the vehicle was repaired under warranty on in December 2022, and a replacement vehicle was supplied at no charge to the consumer between 13th January 2022 until 5th January 2023, when they collected their car.
- We believe that we have provide adequate assistance to the consumer, and are unable to offer anything more as a resolution.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator acknowledged that the consumer had raised a complaint against the repairer – which was addressed in a separate case under the Service and Repair Code, and against the vehicle manufacturer – the subject of this dispute under the New Car Code.
- Unfortunately, the seller was not accredited to The Motor Ombudsman, and therefore, the consumer was advised that, any dispute in relation to the purchase of the vehicle, would need to be addressed with Citizens Advice.
- In terms of the different aspects of the consumer’s complaints, the adjudicator concluded the following:
The provision of a courtesy car
- The adjudicator explained that, under the New Car Code, the manufacturer did not have a legal obligation to provide a hire car or contribute towards the costs of one.
- They equally, did not have the responsibility to cover any fuel or hire car costs from not immediately providing a courtesy vehicle.
- As a result, this element of the complaint was not upheld.
The delay for the supply of replacement parts
- The adjudicator noted that the manufacturer had acknowledged that there was a significant delay in supplying the parts for the repairs to the consumer’s vehicle, which constituted a breach of the New Car Code, and would be upheld on this point.
- The adjudicator also remarked that the part had been supplied, and a courtesy car provided for most of the time that the consumer’s vehicle was at the dealership.
- The adjudicator added that The Motor Ombudsman was unable to award compensation for non-quantifiable losses, such as for stress and inconvenience, with the same applying to any phone calls made, as it was difficult to assign a monetary value or an appropriate sum for reimbursement for these calls.
- In light of what had happened, the adjudicator recommended a goodwill gesture in the form of a 358-day extension to the vehicle’s warranty, once the initial three-year agreement expired, to reflect the period that the consumer’s vehicle was off the road.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome of the consumer’s dispute being partially upheld in their favour, and the case was closed.
