The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 2007-plate car with 57,500 miles on the clock in March 2017. Five months later, the engine management light came on, and the car was booked into my local garage. They identified a fault with the lambda sensor, so I called the accredited business who sold the car to me. They said I had no warranty so they’d be unable to help. As such, I asked my local garage to do the repair. Then, in October 2017, the engine management light came back on and I was told that the piston boreholes were oval which was unexpected for a car of that age and mileage. I contacted the accredited business again and they said that they couldn’t take the complaint further because my local garage was doing the repairs. My car needs a new or reconditioned engine, and I only went to my local garage because the accredited business refused to help. I am therefore seeking a fair resolution to my problem.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have not been given the opportunity to investigate the fault, so we’re not able to help.
- We can see from the invoices that a lambda fault was rectified.
- A further invoice makes reference to fault codes being cleared, but doesn’t say what they related to.
- Neither invoice shows a mileage reading, so we don’t know whether the vehicle was in use or whether there has been any consequential damage.
- Because the faults weren’t reported to us, we’re unable to make an offer to the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator originally recommended that the accredited business should inspect the vehicle, but this didn’t go ahead, so the consumer sought an independent technical report.
- This confirmed that the fault was unexpected for a vehicle of that age and mileage, and therefore, the adjudicator said that the consumer should receive a replacement car.
- The accredited business disagreed, so the adjudicator revised his opinion and said that the accredited business should cover the cost of the repairs.
- However, the accredited business was not willing to pay the cost of the consumer’s independent technical report, and a final decision from the ombudsman was requested.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman upheld the customer’s complaint.
- The independent report was clear that the bores should not have been oval on a vehicle of that age and mileage. It said that this was usually as a result of poor maintenance and the car had a full service history, so it was clearly of unsatisfactory quality.
- In terms of whether the consumer should have gone back to the accredited business, she should have done, as that is the approach to follow legally.
- However, the ombudsman balanced this against the fact that consumers aren’t always aware of their rights, and the accredited business had been given an opportunity to see the car the first time a fault arose, and subsequently refused.
- The ombudsman did recognise that the accredited business was being asked to go along with a diagnosis they couldn’t verify, and there was a risk the repair would fail, thereby leaving them in a difficult situation.
- As such, the ombudsman asked the consumer to contribute 10% towards the cost repair to take into account that the accredited business hadn’t been able to verify the diagnosis and to place any liability with the repair on the local garage. This meant that, if it failed, it would be the local garage’s responsibility and not that of the accredited business.
- The ombudsman also awarded the full cost of the independent report as it had supported the consumer’s complaint.
Conclusion:
- The accredited business was found to be in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code and was asked to pay 90% of the cost of repairs and 100% of the cost of the independent report.
