The consumer’s issue:
“In March 2021, I purchased a used 68-plate saloon from my local dealership for around £16,000. I was pleased with the vehicle and enjoyed driving it. However, in December that year, I took the vehicle for its annual MOT (with around 49,500 miles on the clock), which it passed, but I was informed at the time of certain advisories, which included an oil leak, but this was not classed as excessive.
In order to get these advisories resolved, I took my car to an independent garage to get an oil change, however, upon investigation, the repairer also found a crack in the oil sump. I was informed by them that it was due to a manufacturing defect, so they recommended that I approach the manufacturer to see if they could cover the issue under their warranty. At the time, the car was also displaying signs of a faulty electrical system.
However, the manufacturer rejected the warranty claim, as they said that there was damage on the lower arm and subframe, and therefore believed that the oil leak was the result of an impact rather than a production defect.
Despite contacting them and informing them of the situation, the manufacturer refused to assist. This was extremely disappointing, especially since my car had a valid manufacturer’s warranty.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the repairs to rectify the oil sump leak and electrics, costing around £5,000, to be covered under the warranty, so that I have a car that works, and I am not left out of pocket.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The issue was brought to our attention, and a request was made by the consumer to cover the cost of the repair of the oil sump pan under our new car warranty.
- One of our approved dealerships investigated the matter, and it was found that the cause of the leak was due to impact damage, which is considered to be the result of outside influence.
- We advised the consumer that the rectification work would not be covered under the terms of our warranty, and we therefore do not accept that we have a legal obligation to pay for the repair costs on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence and representations submitted by both parties. The adjudicator then pointed out that the burden of proof was on the consumer to prove that the cause of the fault was due to a manufacturing defect.
- With regards to the electrical system faults, the complainant did not submit sufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate the presence of a manufacturing defect.
- In terms of the oil leak, the adjudicator noted that the consumer supported their complaint with pictures of the faulty component, as well as an independent inspection report from the garage.
- This document indicated that the fault was most likely due to a manufacturing defect as a hairline crack in the component was found. There was also no evidence of impact damage around the area where the crack could be seen.
- As the business did not provide any documentary evidence to refute this, the adjudicator found that there was a breach of New Car Code by the business, as sufficient evidence was presented which supported the consumer’s complaint, and demonstrated the likely presence of a manufacturing defect.
- Therefore, the adjudicator ruled in favour of the customer, and awarded a free repair of the oil sump leak.
Conclusion
- Both the business and agreed with the adjudication outcome, and a repair of the faults was carried out and covered by the business. The case was then closed.
