The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used high-performance estate from an independent car retailer for around £28,000 in June 2021. In February 2022, I noticed blistering on the front wings of the car. I therefore contacted the vehicle manufacturer to report the problem, and they said that the vehicle was still covered under its 10-year corrosion warranty.
I was advised to visit my closest franchise dealer, and they proceeded to refer me to a body repair specialist that explained that the problem was corrosion. However, the dealership refuted these findings and said that the issue could not be repaired under warranty. I got in touch with the manufacturer once again to explain that I was not happy with this decision, and they recommended that I got a second opinion from another dealership to be able to overturn this. I did just that, and this business said the blistering was caused by stone chips, and would not be covered under warranty.
As I was still not convinced the dealerships were correct in their diagnosis, I took my vehicle in April 2022 to a local repair shop where they removed the front wings, which revealed the extent of the corrosion. I therefore had the rust removed from inside the panels and the nearside wing replaced at a cost of £1,150. I contacted the manufacturer once again, and they said that the wing that was removed had to be sent to the dealership where I had received the second opinion. Their new warranty expert determined it was corrosion and reported this back to the manufacturer.
Nevertheless, this opinion was soon dismissed by the manufacturer, as they said the warranty expert at the dealership had only provided a point of view, rather than being qualified to do so. After going back to the dealership for a fourth time, the manufacturer finally stated that, although it was corrosion, they would not honour their warranty as I had made the decision myself to have the car repaired.
However, I find this report inaccurate, as I had no other choice, and I made my decision to have the repair completed by an independent expert. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for a full refund of £1,150 from the manufacturer that I paid out to have my vehicle repaired.”
The accredited business’ response:
- After seeking expert advice and opinions from the body repair specialist, and from one of our dealerships, and regardless of whether the corrosion was ‘through-corrosion’ or corrosion due to stone chips, the consumer made the decision to repair the vehicle themselves through their chosen independent garage.
- They initially advised the need to repair the wing, and later realised it needed a complete replacement after they began work on it.
- As the repair work was not done by a manufacturer-approved repairer, it is not warrantable, meaning we are unable to cover this under warranty on this occasion.
- We apologised to the consumer for any miscommunication that may have transpired throughout their dealings with the parties involved, and we understood the frustration and disappointment in the outcome of the investigation.
The adjudication outcome:
- There were two aspects to consider for the adjudication outcome. The first was regarding the manufacturing defect, with the second being about the repair of the vehicle by the independent garage.
The manufacturing defect
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the cause of the defect was due to a manufacturing defect covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
- Although the consumer argued that the repair of the corrosion should have been covered under the warranty, a second opinion from the dealership stated that the fault was caused by external influence i.e. stone chips.
- As the consumer had not provided any further evidence to the contrary, on the balance balance of probability, the defect was more likely than not due to this.
The repairs to the vehicle
- The adjudicator said that, as the repair was carried out at an independent garage, i.e. outside of the manufacturer’s franchise network, the manufacturer did not have any obligation to cover the consumer’s costs for the repairs that had been undertaken.
- In summary, the adjudicator was not able to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour on either aspects.
The consumer’s response to the adjudication outcome:
- The consumer rejected the adjudicator’s decision, stating that three separate parties all agreed that the vehicle had suffered from corrosion.
- The only reason the consumer arranged repairs with an independent garage was because the dealership originally told them that the claim would not be covered under warranty.
- The consumer therefore believed the manufacturer had done all that they could to avoid covering the claim under the terms of their warranty.
- The consumer also added that, as it was agreed that corrosion was the issue, the manufacturer was trying to rely on the repair being completed outside of their network to avoid covering the cost of the work that had been done by the independent garage.
- Based on the above, the consumer asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an ombudsman for a final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence available, and was not satisfied that the vehicle manufacturer had adequately responded to the consumer’s complaint.
- Whilst the business was relying on the fact that the consumer had repairs carried out outside of its network, they ignored fact that they had initially incorrectly diagnosed the corrosion on the wings of the vehicle, which led the consumer to having to seek repairs elsewhere.
- The ombudsman used the correspondence between the manufacturer and the consumer to create a timeline to assess whether the warranty had been administered in the correct way.
- The evidence showed that the dealerships inside the manufacturer’s network had incorrectly diagnosed the corrosion when the vehicle was initially presented to them, meaning the ombudsman did not find it unreasonable that the customer sought repairs elsewhere when the warranty claim was declined.
- The timeline of events also showed that once the repairs had been completed by the independent garage chosen by the consumer, the dealerships inside the manufacturer’s network were shown the removed component and they all agreed it was corrosion.
- Therefore, the customer should have received the benefit of the manufacturer’s warranty, as a manufacturing defect was found within the warranty period.
- Just because the dealership failed to correctly diagnose the fault did not equate to the fact that the manufacturer did not owe the customer an obligation to cover the repairs at no cost under their warranty.
- The ombudsman therefore upheld the consumer’s complaint in their favour, and directed the business to reimburse the consumer the sum of £1,150, as they had failed to correctly diagnose the manufacturing defect under the terms of their warranty.
- The ombudsman also recommended that the manufacturer issued a formal apology to the consumer, and that it should provide the necessary feedback to its dealerships to ensure warranty claims are handled in the correct way going forward.
Conclusion:
- The consumer accepted the final decision, and a full refund of £1,150 was arranged for the repair carried out by the independent garage in April 2022. The case was closed.
