The consumer’s issue:
“In March 2019, I purchased a used 16-plate hatchback from a premium brand using the assistance of a finance agreement. The car was just under three years old and had covered around 25,000 miles. Issues started developing with the car soon after purchase, and it was repaired under warranty.
In June 2019, just before the warranty was due to expire, I took the car to a franchise dealership for a diagnosis as I felt there was something wrong with the transmission. The investigation highlighted a number of faults, including defects with the engine and gearbox. The dealership therefore removed them and fitted new ones. However, six months later, I was still experiencing problems when changing gear and I complained again. My local dealership confirmed that the gearbox was still faulty, and it was replaced for a second time.
Despite the repairs, the fault with the gearbox has persisted and I’m not confident that they are able to fix it. I’d like to reject the car, and I’d also like the dealership to compensate me for the two months I was left without my car while it was being repaired.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We checked the car prior to sale, and it had no outstanding recalls or any indication of engine or transmission defects.
- We also completed a pre-sales check, and no faults were noted with the car.
- The vehicle was fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality when it was sold, so we’re not responsible for the issues the consumer has had with it.
- It is also a used car, so it’s expected to have some age or wear-related issues.
- Therefore, we are unable to provide any further assistance to the consumer in this instance.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, although there had been faults with the car, the repairs had all been covered under warranty at no cost to the consumer.
- She observed that there was no evidence that the repairs hadn’t been successful and, similarly, the customer had not supplied any evidence that demonstrated the gearbox was still faulty.
- The consumer disagreed with this, as they felt they had provided sufficient proof of the issues with the vehicle, and that the accredited business had also failed to supply evidence to support their position.
- The consumer equally disagreed with the adjudicator’s decision not to uphold the customer’s complaint and asked for an ombudsman’s final decision.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman considered the evidence supplied by both parties, and came to a different conclusion to that issued by the adjudicator.
- She said there was a legal obligation on the accredited business to supply a car that was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.
- She explained that if a fault develops within the first six months of purchase, then it was generally assumed that it had been present or developing when the car was sold.
- The ombudsman also noted that various faults had been repaired under warranty with the consumer’s consent. She explained that the consumer couldn’t retrospectively claim an alternative remedy under the law once a repair was accepted and that it had been successful.
- However, she pointed out that the gearbox on the car had also been replaced within the first six months of purchase and, in fact, had been replaced again – meaning the consumer had received two new gearboxes within the space of 12 months.
- The ombudsman emphasised the fact that a lack of recall was not evidence that the car was fault free. She explained the dealership that supplied the car remained liable for the quality of the car and its components.
- Given the issues and the serious nature of the repairs, the ombudsman concluded that the car had hadn’t been of satisfactory quality when it was sold.
- Therefore, she directed the dealership to reimburse the consumer the equivalent of two months’ finance payments for the car in compensation of the time they had been left without a vehicle. However, as the consumer had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the gearbox fault had persisted, rejection of the car was not a proportionate remedy.
- The ombudsman gave the consumer a further opportunity to provide information that showed the vehicle was still suffering with a defect in the gearbox, but no additional evidence was received.
- As such, the accredited business was asked to refund the consumer £600 in recognition of the time the vehicle had spent off the road whilst it was being repaired.
Conclusion:
- Both the accredited business and the consumer accepted the ombudsman’s final decision, and the case was resolved.
