The consumer’s issue:
“In August 2021, I purchased a used premium diesel estate car with a 67-plate from a franchise dealership. During the sale, I was assured that this vehicle had been sold new by the business to another customer, and was then brought back in as a part-exchange by the same person. In addition, the dealership explained that they had always maintained and serviced the car, and there was no record of any accidental damage or smart repairs to the vehicle.
The salesperson also tried selling me a number of insurance products, including a ceramic coating for the bodywork, but in the end I declined these. Whilst considering the purchase however, I noted a few defects on the vehicle, one of which was a chip in the windscreen. This issue was resolved by the business, but a dent on the bonnet nevertheless remained.
On the day of collecting the vehicle, I was very excited, but when I arrived, it looked as though the vehicle had not been properly prepared, as the interior was still very dirty, amongst other things that were wrong with the car. Due to living far away from the dealership where I bought the car, and the prevailing fuel shortage at the time, I had a local detailer clean the vehicle for our holiday.
A short while after this, in February 2022, I was cleaning the car, and I noticed the lacquer on the front bumper was peeling. This led me to having the vehicle taken to a number of repairers who pointed out that the initial rectification work on the car was poorly done.
I reported this issue to the business, but no resolution was reached. After some time had lapsed, and due to a loss of confidence in the retailer, I decided to have the repairs completed by an independent repairer at my own expense a couple of months after I bought the car. To conclude my complaint, I am therefore looking for a 50% contribution to the valeting, repairs and re-application of the ceramic treatment, which cost me £2,000.”
The accredited business’ response:
- There is no record of any complaints from the customer at the time of the vehicle handover, or during the subsequent ownership of the car, and the issues were only brought to light in February 2022 – this being six months after the sale.
- We investigated the claims made about the bodywork, and also reviewed the images that were sent to us by the customer, but in the opinion of our bodyshop professionals, the damage seen was due to harsh chemicals used on the vehicle, followed possibly by a jet wash.
- The fact that there was no evidence of any defects with the paintwork at the time of sale or in the six months after the purchase, indicated the application of a strong chemical cleaner rather than the problem stemming from a manufacturing fault.
- As part of the investigation, we looked at the documentation from when the sale took place, and saw that, from the survey completed by the customer, they were completely satisfied with our service and the condition in which the vehicle was presented. In fact, we received a five-star rating.
- We also looked at preparation work that was completed prior to the sale, which was all carried out in accordance with our Approved Used programme. Furthermore, we checked the part exchange appraisal which was carried out in June 2021 when the car was traded in by the previous owner. Our records showed no record of repairs carried out to the front of the vehicle as part of part of the preparation process.
- Therefore, we believe that the vehicle was prepared to professional and high standards and, as there is not any evidence to demonstrate that there was a fault with the paintwork at the point of sale, we will not be offering a contribution to the cost of the repair that has been requested by the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and pointed out that, since the issues were raised within the first six months of ownership, the evidential burden was on the business to prove that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale and free of any body or paint defects.
- According to their complaint, the consumer stated, when they test drove the vehicle that, there was a chip in the windscreen, a dent in the bonnet, and the chrome trim was stained around the window. However, in the appraisal carried out at the time of the part-exchange in June 2021, no chip was identified in the windscreen and no damage to the bonnet was noted.
- Therefore, the documentary evidence did not support that the faults described by the consumer were present on the vehicle at the time of inspection or at the point of collection.
- In terms of the lacquer peeling off the bumper when the consumer was washing their vehicle in February 2022, the business acknowledged the fault with the paint, but claimed that it was not present at the point of sale, and was more likely down to the use of a harsh chemical that was used on the surface of the vehicle after sale.
- In response to this, the customer provided a number of estimates for the repair of the paintwork, which confirmed the presence of the fault, but not the cause, or whether it was on the vehicle at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator also had the opportunity to read through the pre-sale checklist, and noted that the body and the paintwork of the vehicle were thoroughly inspected, with no mention or note of any damaged paintwork, dents or defects on the front bumper.
- This, together with the part-exchange appraisal document confirmed that the body of the vehicle was free of any paint defects on the front bumper when the vehicle was traded in by the previous owner, and that the vehicle was free of paint defects on the front bumper when it was sold to the consumer less than two months thereafter.
- In relation to the customer service, the adjudicator noted that the business submitted the survey completed by the customer which demonstrated that they were satisfied with both the condition of the vehicle at the point of sale, and the service received. When considering the documentation submitted, the adjudicator noted that the customer’s version of events were in conflict with the documentation received.
- The Consumer Rights Act 2015 also stipulates that the business, as the selling dealer, should have been given the opportunity to inspect the car or arrange for an inspection to take place at a local garage in order to determine what the issue was and provide a repair.
- In this case, the business was only notified of the issue with the paint defect four months after work had already been completed by another garage, meaning the adjudicator was unable to agree that the business should be liable to contribute to the customer’s repair costs.
- So, whilst the adjudicator understood that the consumer believed the cause of the fault was present and developing at the point of sale, and that the business should be liable for part of the repair costs, the adjudicator concluded that the evidence currently did not support this.
- As a result, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the business was in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
Conclusion:
- Both the business and the customer agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the case was duly closed.
