The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand new 69-plate hybrid hatchback in November 2019. Less than three years later, in October 2022, I noticed that paint was peeling on the roof. I therefore contacted the dealership to report the problem, and I was then referred to a manufacturer-approved bodywork specialist centre to have the vehicle inspected.
The specialist centre found a lower paint depth around the area of concern, which they believed to be the result of a manufacturing defect. However, the dealership refuted the findings of the specialist, and said that the issue was because of external influence, such as bird lime.
I contacted the manufacturer to explain that I disagreed with this diagnosis, but they still declined my claim. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for a full repair of the defective area to be conducted under the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Whilst we can understand the customer’s frustration with the decision made by our dealership, we do rely on the technicians in our network and at authorised bodyshop specialists to diagnose and investigate issues with customer vehicles.
- This is because they have the technical expertise and the required diagnostic equipment to be able to find the root cause of problems that are reported.
- The terms of our warranty state that damage or defects resulting from an external cause and/or natural phenomenon are excluded and cannot be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
- However, it does seem on this occasion that the paint specialist and the dealership have differing opinions on what has caused the paint to peel.
- Nevertheless, once a warranty decision has been made by either our warranty team or the dealership, we do not have the power to overturn this decision.
- Whilst we appreciate that the customer is not satisfied with the decision to reject the warranty claim, we believe the claim was correctly declined.
- Therefore, we are unable to cover the cost of repair under the terms of our warranty on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the version of events provided by the business and the customer, and explained that the complainant in this dispute had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the fault with the paintwork was covered within the scope of the manufacturer’s warranty.
- The adjudicator also explained that a decision would be made on balance of probability and the terms and conditions of the warranty.
- Based on the evidence provided and the information available, the adjudicator disagreed with the outcome reached by the manufacturer to decline the customer’s warranty claim.
- The adjudicator took into consideration the outcome reached by a qualified bodyshop technician in stating that the defect was indeed a result of a manufacturing error.
- The specialist provided a statement whereby his inspection showed that the paint thickness on the area of concern was lower than the standard thickness of paint used on other parts of the vehicle.
- As such, the adjudicator found that the conclusions of the specialist held more weight than a decision made by the manufacturer’s own warranty team to dismiss the claim based on photographic evidence alone.
- As such, on the balance of probability, the adjudicator found it to be more likely than not that the issue encountered by the customer was down to an error in the manufacturing process.
- Therefore, the manufacturer was found to be in breach of the New Car Code, and in light of the findings, the customer was entitled to a free of charge repair to the defective area, and for the paintwork to be rectified in line with industry standards.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the outcome reached by the adjudicator.
- The consumer confirmed to the adjudicator that the manufacturer had subsequently been in touch to book the vehicle in for the agreed work.
- The case was then closed with no further action required.
