Oil burning problem

The consumer’s issue:

“Since buying my car two years ago, I have had recurring problems with the oil burning. There have been a number of attempts to repair the issue, including replacing an oil seal and a rocker cover, but the oil burning problem still persists.

The dealership is now making up excuses that the car has been remapped, and that the dashboard and mileage have been tampered with. Although the car has been repaired following a minor accident, I don’t believe this, and I think they are just making up excuses to avoid rectifying the issue under warranty.

I am looking for the business to repair the car under warranty or provide me with a refund. However, the business is declining my request by saying that the car has been tampered with after they sold it to me.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The car’s tamper proof seals on the instrument cluster have been broken, the wiring loom connector changed, plus there is evidence that the mileage on the car has been manipulated.
  • The key memory data for the car shows inconsistencies in mileage since the sale of the vehicle.
  • Due to the instrument cluster being removed, the tamper proof seal has been broken, and with the evident mileage discrepancy, we declined to repair the issue under warranty.
  • Additionally, the issues with the car were not caused by an inherent fault present at the point of sale.
  • Finally, due to the customer’s conduct when speaking to our staff members, the consumer has been informed that we won’t be carrying out any other work on their car.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The adjudicator stated that the dealership was not party to the manufacturer’s warranty agreement, so they could not be compelled to repair the car under the agreement.
  • Furthermore, the evidence provided did not demonstrate that the cause of the fault was present at the point of sale. This meant that the seller did not have an obligation to repair the issue under the sales contract.
  • Finally, the business reserves the right to refuse to offer their services to a customer, so their position that they would no longer be dealing with the consumer was not found to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Code of Practice.
  • No award was therefore made to the customer.


  • Neither party has requested an appeal of the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.