The consumer’s issue:

In August 2023, the consumer purchased a used 69-plate mid-size pickup from a dealership for around £30,000. Starting from a month after purchase, the consumer reported issues with the vehicle. The dealership repaired it twice, but the issues continued, so the consumer complained to the business that their four-year-old pickup was not of the expected quality.

The dealership and consumer agreed the vehicle could be returned for a refund, subject to deductions for use. However, the consumer felt the sum calculated by the retailer for the miles covered since purchase was excessive. The consumer explained this deduction rate did not account for the proportion of the mileage covered, that involved travelling to the dealership for repairs, the poor quality of the vehicle, the inconvenience and time spent addressing the faults, and the fact they did not benefit from the warranty they had purchased.

To help resolve their dispute, the consumer proposed a lower deduction rate, but the dealership rejected this. Instead, the consumer accepted a refund for the vehicle, as they were worried about being left with a car that was not fit for purpose. Nevertheless, to bring their complaint to a close, the consumer was seeking a lower deduction rate for the miles travelled to be applied retrospectively, equating to an additional refund of £1,300.

The case outcome:

From the evidence provided, the adjudicator noted several faults were identified and repaired within six months of purchase. This included issues with the drive shaft clamp, low pressure EGR cooler filter, AdBlue injector, and diesel particulate filter. It was presumed under the Consumer Rights Act (2015) that these faults were present at the point of sale, and it was the dealership’s responsibility to show otherwise. However, the retailer did not provide any such evidence.

Considering the type and number of faults that were repaired within six months of purchase, the adjudicator concluded these were likely present at sale, and therefore determined that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale when the consumer bought the pickup.

For the Bluetooth problem, the adjudicator explained that faults reported after six months of purchase are generally presumed not to have been present at sale, and there was no evidence to dispute this.

The adjudicator also noted that the issues raised by the consumer had been successfully repaired, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The adjudicator therefore could not determine the dealership was required to accept a rejection of the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act (2015). Instead, its return appeared to be a goodwill gesture. When it came to the deduction rate applied to the mileage travelled since purchase, this was at the dealership’s discretion, and therefore no further action could be taken on this point.

Conclusion:

In summary, the complaint was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the consumer was awarded a written apology for the number of faults they experienced shortly after buying the pickup.

Key learning point:

Once faults that were present at purchase are resolved, a business is no longer obliged to provide a further remedy to a consumer, such as a rejection or replacement vehicle.