The consumer’s issue:
“In October 2019, I purchased a brand new 69-plate compact crossover SUV from my local dealership. I took good care of the vehicle, but towards the end of August 2021 when the car was under two years old, and had less than 8,000 miles on the clock, I noticed some faulty stitching on the driver’s seat.
I reported the issue to the selling dealership, and they sent the photos I had provided to the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty department. Following an exchange of e-mails with the manufacturer’s customer care team, I finally received their response regarding the fault, which was that it was the result of wear and tear commensurate with the age of the car, and the repair, costing in the region of £1,000, would not be covered under the warranty.
I disputed these findings, and they suggested that I contacted The Motor Ombudsman to resolve the issue.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We received notification about the issue from the franchise dealership that carried out the investigation into the matter.
- The business reported to us that the stitching in the driver’s seat had become faulty.
- In addition to the notification of the problem, the dealership also included images of the affected area to demonstrate the extent of the damage being complained about.
- Upon our review of the complaint and photos, we noted that the driver’s seat was showing signs of discolouration, and that the stiches had been subject to excessive force, causing the leather material to tear in the eyelets of the stiches.
- These images therefore confirmed that the cause of the reported fault was not due to a manufacturing defect.
- As a result of the findings, we decided not to make a contribution towards the repair under the terms of the warranty, as it was established that the fault was due to wear over time.
- Therefore, on this occasion, our final decision remains unchanged.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator looked at the version of events of both parties, and noted in their decision that the evidential burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that the cause of the fault was due to a manufacturing defect that occurred within the warranty period.
- The adjudicator also pointed out that in terms of the manufacturer’s warranty, this was the condition that needed to be met for the faulty seat to be replaced under warranty.
- The adjudicator noted that, even though the evidence confirmed the presence of a fault, and that it was a concern during the warranty period, the documents submitted did not demonstrate that the cause of the issue was due to a manufacturing defect.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not uphold the complaint, and did not consider the manufacturer to have been in breach of the New Car Code. As such, the business was not obligated to cover the cost of the repair in terms of the warranty.
Conclusion
- The consumer did not respond and, as a result, the case was closed.
