Post-purchase faults

The consumer’s issue:

“I bought a used 19-plate compact SUV from a dealership, which was delivered to me in November 2020. Shortly after this, and within six months of buying the car, I began noticing some issues with the vehicle.

These were in relation to what was advertised with the vehicle and some faults which had started to appear. Prior to the purchase, I had seen an advert which said that there were eight-way electric adjustable front seats, driver memory, all-weather floormats, a boot mat, a cargo compartment organiser and speed sensitive power door locks. However, when I took delivery of the car, these items were not included.

As time passed during the ownership of the SUV, I noticed about seven faults within the vehicle. These were namely, a rattling noise from the interior, a fault with the seatbelt, the indicators not making a ticking noise, the door not locking whilst driving, the brakes squeaking, the service book having water damage, and a faulty radio.

Therefore, I have received a vehicle which was not what was advertised, and now it has started to develop faults. I am unhappy with the car, and I would like to reject it for a full refund as a result.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • With regards to the rattling noise identified by the customer, we diagnosed this as the speaker needing to be replaced, which we proceeded to do in November 2020.
  • The indicators required the instrument cluster to be changed, and this part is still with us at our dealership. This repair would also cover the issue experienced with the seatbelt indicator.
  •  The problem with the doors not locking whilst driving had not been raised with us before we received this complaint. We advised the consumer that this feature can be turned on and off by using the touchscreen on the infotainment system on the car.
  • We completed a vehicle health check on 25th September 2020, but did not find any issues with the brakes. However, we would like to offer the customer the opportunity for this part of the vehicle to be checked at our dealership.
  • We do not dispute that there is an issue with the service book, and we would be more than happy to replace this with a new one.
  • In our view, the faults identified are minor, and would therefore not render the car unfit for purpose. The consumer can still drive the vehicle safely and any outstanding repairs can be carried out. We would like the opportunity to repair the vehicle for the consumer.
  • We agree that there were some features advertised which were not included within the specification of vehicle that the customer had purchased.
  • However, the customer had signed a handover form, indicating that they were happy with the vehicle, so we do not consider ourselves to be liable for the vehicle not being as described.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator said that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that the dealership had sold a vehicle to them which was not as described at the point of sale and/or not of satisfactory quality.
  • The adjudicator noted that the dealership did not dispute that the vehicle was not as described when they had completed the purchase order and formed the agreement with the consumer. However, the business pointed out that the customer had accepted the vehicle at handover.
  • Although there was a signed handover form, it did not make reference to the consumer being happy with the condition of the car, and did not place an express acceptance that they would be accepting the absent features that had been advertised as being included. For this reason, the adjudicator upheld that the SUV was not as described at the point of sale, and that there had been a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code as a result.
  • The adjudicator then turned to consider the issue of whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale. There were seven issues raised within this complaint, and of those, it was only the faults with the seatbelt and indicator that appeared to be present. The issue with the rattling noise from the interior had been repaired, and therefore there would be no remedy available for historic faults which had been rectified.
  • The issue with the door lock appeared to be resolvable by either switching this on or off, and the adjudicator also explained that the dealership had not had an opportunity to inspect this part of the car and to verify the fault.
  • The adjudicator explained that the brakes on a car could reasonably be considered a wear and tear item, and that, as such, The Motor Ombudsman’s Codes would not afford protections for these parts within a used car.
  • There was some video evidence provided of the radio, but overall, this was insufficient to satisfy the adjudicator that there was a fault.
  • The adjudicator concluded that the fault with the indicators and seatbelt was present at the point of sale. This was because the issues were discovered within six months from the point of purchase, and the business had not offered any evidence or explanation to rebut this presumption.
  • It was then necessary to review the relevant factors in the complaint to see whether a reasonable consumer would consider these inherent faults would be enough to render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality. The adjudicator considered the age of the vehicle, which was around 18 months old at the point of sale, and found that a reasonable consumer would not have expected to have these faults with a car that was less than two years old.
  • The mileage of the vehicle was equally a relevant factor. This car had been sold having already covered 16,862 miles. Although this would have been slightly higher than the national average when considered against the age, it was deemed that a reasonable person would expect the vehicle to not have these kinds of faults having covered less than 20,000 miles.
  • Finally, the adjudicator pointed out that the Consumer Rights Act provides that a vehicle should be free of minor defects, but that these must be sufficient to render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality. In this instance, the adjudicator had found that the problems were enough to render the car of unsatisfactory quality, and upheld the consumer’s complaint on this basis.
  • In terms of the most appropriate and proportionate remedy in the circumstances, the adjudicator remarked that the dealership had already had an opportunity to repair the car. In addition, the consumer had clearly written to the dealership within 30 days from the point of sale seeking to reject the car.
  • The adjudicator explained that, where a rejection request is made within the first 30 days, and there are inherent faults found on the vehicle, there can be no deductions made by the dealership for mileage covered. Nor does the dealership have a one-shot entitlement at this stage. For this reason, the adjudicator considered that the only appropriate remedy that could be recommended for this complaint was a rejection of the vehicle and a full refund of the purchase price.

Conclusion

  • Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s outcome. Consequently, the vehicle was rejected by the consumer and returned to the business with the consumer receiving a full refund of the purchase price.