The consumer’s issue:
“In September 2019, I purchased a brand new 69-plate compact SUV from a local dealership. Within seven months of buying the car, during the COVID-19 lockdown, I noticed that the plastic chrome trim around the windows on both sides of the car had become marked and speckled in appearance.
I immediately reported this issue to the dealer, due to the quality and durability of the trim not being what was expected from a new vehicle. As such, I expected them to replace it under warranty, but this claim for a £600 repair was declined by the manufacturer.
As a resolution to the complaint, I am looking for the manufacturer to honour the warranty and replace the vehicle trim on both sides of my vehicle at no cost to myself, as I believe that the marking has not occurred due to fair wear and tear, or due to neglect.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We received notification about the issue from the complainant, and understood they wanted to challenge the outcome of a warranty claim for the replacement of the vehicle trim.
- After the investigation was completed, it was found that the small white spots seen on the vehicle trim was down to external influence and not due to a manufacturing defect.
- This information was relayed back to the consumer who was not happy with the outcome. We informed the customer that due to the findings, the decision to not replace the trim under warranty was correct, and therefore the decision would not be overturned.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator looked at both the consumer’s complaint, as well as the business’ response thereto, and noted in their decision that the evidential burden was on the complainant to demonstrate that the cause of the fault was due to a manufacturing defect.
- The adjudicator also pointed out that in terms of the manufacturer’s warranty, this was the condition that needed to be met for the vehicle trim to be replaced under warranty.
- Due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the issue with the trim was caused by a manufacturing defect, the business was not found to be in breach of the New Car Code.
- As a result, the adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint.
Conclusion
- The business agreed with the adjudication outcome, but the consumer did not respond or provide any additional evidence in support of their complaint.
- Due to no response received by the consumer within the timeframe required, the adjudicator proceeded to close the case.
