SUV starter motor failure

The consumer’s issue:

In May 2018, I purchased a brand new SUV from my local dealership. In the space of seven months, beginning in September 2020, my vehicle broke down on three separate occasions. Initially, the starter motor was repaired twice as a result of a breakdown, and then the ignition was found to be at fault, so this was also repaired. Upon further inspection, it was found that the ECU (Electronic Control Unit) was the main problem.

Overall, my car has been with the dealership for more than six weeks, and is still not ready for collection anytime soon. In addition, I have not been offered a courtesy car to keep me mobile during this period, which is the least the business could have done to help put things right.

I asked the manufacturer to provide me with a three-year warranty extension to ensure that all the aforementioned issues would not reappear. If they don’t agree to this, I would like them to buy the vehicle back from me at a reasonable cost, as the problems have led to me missing events and family time as a result of being stuck at the roadside.”

The accredited business’ response:

  •  Between September 2020 and June 2021, we were informed by the customer of issues with the starter motor and ignition system, which were subsequently replaced under warranty.
  • Immediate action was taken to ensure repairs were successful.
  • As we were not aware of when the work actually took place, we were not able to provide the complainant with a courtesy car.
  • Therefore, in recognition of their experience, we offered a one-year extended warranty as a gesture of goodwill.
  • Unfortunately, by the time this offer was accepted, the original warranty on the vehicle had ended, which meant that the extension could no longer be applied.
  • To compensate for this, we offered a free two-year service plan, which was accepted by the consumer.
  • We appreciate the customer’s experience regarding the repair was disappointing, but we are satisfied that all concerns have been addressed under the warranty.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered both the consumer’s complaint and the business’s response, and agreed that the faults occurred within the warranty period.
  • The adjudicator addressed the issue with the courtesy car and the obligation of the manufacturer to provide one. However, it was explained to the consumer that the manufacturer is not required to supply one under The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for New Cars.
  • The adjudicator further elaborated that the courtesy vehicle was indeed not provided due to the manufacturer themselves being unaware of the timescales of the repair.
  • The adjudicator then proceeded to address the issue regarding the repairs and the request for the extension of the warranty.
  • The adjudicator explained that the manufacturer initially offered a year’s extension of the warranty. However, the offer was later withdrawn due to the time it took for the consumer to accept it.
  • It was also noted that the manufacturer offered a two-year service plan to compensate for this, which was accepted by the consumer.
  • The adjudicator agreed that the actions taken by the manufacturer were more than fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  • As a result, the adjudicator did not uphold the consumer’s complaint in their favour, and were therefore not supplied with a three-year warranty extension.
  • Furthermore, the adjudicator also redirected the consumer towards The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code if they wished to reject the car, as this could not be considered under the New Car Code.

Conclusion

  • Due to no response from the consumer or the business within the timeframe required following the delivery of the adjudication outcome, the case was closed.