The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new estate car from a dealership in September 2015. Around three years’ later in October 2018, I contacted the business to explain that the car was not of satisfactory quality, as paint was peeling around the reversing sensors on the rear bumper.
I asked them to repair the damage free of charge, and took my vehicle to the dealership to be inspected. Their master technician said however, that the issue would not be covered under the paint warranty. I don’t agree with this, and I would like the dealership to cover the cost of repainting the bumper, which I expect to be around £250.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We looked through the documents provided by the customer, and after discussing these in detail with our Service Manager, we found that the peeling paint that the consumer experienced was consistent with an external influence, such as jet washing.
- The consumer purchased the vehicle in September 2015, and the paint damage was not there at the time of collection.
- The fault was discovered after six months of ownership, which means the burden is on the customer to prove that the issue was present when they bought the car.
- This was not provided, so we concluded that the damage was caused by outside influences during the three years since the car was purchased, and we will therefore not be covering the cost of the repair.
The adjudication outcome:
- The customer provided evidence that there was paint peeling off their car at the time of the complaint, and this fault was not contested by the dealer.
- The adjudicator also accepted that the paint on the bumper of the car had peeled off around the reversing sensors, but the customer had not provided any proof to indicate that the peeling paint was caused by a fault that was present at the point of sale.
- The consumer had owned the vehicle for more than three years before finding the issue, and therefore the adjudicator concluded that there may have been any number of external influences that could have caused this damage since purchasing the car, rather than being a fault at the point of sale that suddenly presented itself three years later.
- The evidence submitted to The Motor Ombudsman therefore did not demonstrate it was more likely than not that the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault at the point of sale, which was currently causing the paint to peel.
- As a result, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour, meaning that the business did not have to cover the cost of the repair.
Conclusion:
- Neither party requested an appeal of the outcome, and the case was closed.
