The consumer’s issue:
“In March 2018, I purchased a brand-new SUV from a franchise dealership. However, in July 2018, a few months after buying the car, the external chrome trim began to fade, become discoloured, and then turn white. I reported the issue to my local dealer with the intention of having the trim replaced or repaired under the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty.
The manufacturer maintained that it was not a quality issue, and that it must have been the result of using cleaning products on the trim. However, this does not explain why the adjacent trim is completely unaffected, whilst other trim is failing edge-to-edge.
The manufacturer subsequently offered to cover half of the repair costs, but to me, this is a quality control issue. However, I think the faulty parts should be replaced under the warranty and, as a resolution, I am therefore looking for the manufacturer or seller to pay the full cost, which equates to around £800.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer informed one of our dealerships that the chrome trim on the vehicle became discoloured.
- A full investigation by the retailer revealed no evidence of a manufacturing defect, and believed that the issue was the result of an external influence, such as the cleaning products applied to the vehicle.
- As there was no defect, we could not cover the cost of the repair under our warranty.
- Regardless of the above, we offered to cover 50% of the repair costs as a goodwill gesture, but this was declined by the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the available evidence, including images of the chrome trim, but it did not demonstrate that the fault was the result of poor workmanship or materials used during the manufacturing process.
- The adjudicator pointed out that the warranty only covered the cost of repairing or replacing parts affected by a manufacturing defect, which meant that the manufacturer was not obliged to do this.
- The adjudicator was therefore unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, but did recommend that the customer spoke to the selling dealership, as they were liable for the quality of the car at the point of sale, and that they also accepted the goodwill gesture offered by the manufacturer.
Conclusion:
- No response was received from the consumer to the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.