The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used ’64-plate car in July 2018. At the point of sale, the car had an MOT carried out with no advisories. When the MOT was next due in June 2019, around 11 months after I took delivery of the car, I was given an advisory for pitted and worn front brake discs. I therefore checked the full MOT history and found an advisory in December 2017, seven months before I bought the car, for the same issue – pitting and wear of the front brake discs.
I therefore feel the condition of the car was misrepresented to me when buying it, as I was under the impression that I was purchasing an approved used car. To resolve my complaint, I want the dealership to accept responsibility for the costs I incurred to have my brake discs replaced.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Before the car was sold to the customer, we completed a pre-sale inspection which showed that, while the brake discs were in a condition that was consistent with the car’s age and mileage, they were of satisfactory quality and did not require replacement.
- In addition, a MOT inspection was carried out on the car before the sale was completed. This included a check of the brakes that would have revealed any imbalance or faults with the brakes. However, nothing was found.
- The fact the discs are only an advisory item more than 11 months after the car’s supply shows that the car was of satisfactory quality when sold.
The adjudication outcome:
- After reviewing the submissions of both parties, the Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted and agreed that, while the MOT inspection that was carried out 11 months after the car’s supply indicated the brake discs would require attention in the future, they were in a serviceable condition at that time, as it was only an advisory.
- The fact that there had been a similar advisory in the MOT history did not mean that the car was of unsatisfactory quality or unfit for purpose when the consumer bought it.
- As the brakes appeared to be of a satisfactory quality nearly a year after the car was purchased, the adjudicator was satisfied they were also of an acceptable standard at the point of sale.
- Therefore, the adjudicator did not uphold the customer’s complaint.
- The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome, so the case was closed.