The consumer’s issue:
“In September 2022, I purchased a used 19-plate premium saloon from a franchise dealership. Five months later, the vehicle was taken back for a service, costing me £600, where the business advised that the brake pads were in good condition, as these were replaced before I took ownership of the car. However, the discs showed they were below their recommended minimum thickness, which meant that they were likely to have had excessive wear before my purchase of the vehicle, and should have been replaced prior to sale. I was quoted £1,200 for them to be changed.
Additionally, I reported some electrical issues, most notably with the start-stop feature, and the folding mirrors, which would not retract when the vehicle was locked. As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the business to repair my vehicle at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The car purchased by the consumer, was subject to our Approved Used check at our preparation centre, and met the standards for sale required by the vehicle manufacturer.
- The video highlighting the checks carried out on the wheels and brakes, showed their condition complied with the Approved Used requirements.
- At the time the customer brought the car in for a service in February 2023, they had already covered 6,000 miles since purchase.
- When we informed the consumer about the condition of the brakes, they made a complaint about the cost of replacement, but we stated they were still legally acceptable, and the car was safe to drive.
- We also invited the customer into the dealership and completed a safety check at the time to prove the car was safe.
- We replaced the starter battery to rectify the issue with the stop/start function.
- Unfortunately, we were unable to replicate the issue with the folding mirror, and we advised the customer of this.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence, and noted that the consumer had raised concerns with the worn brake discs, the starter battery, and the folding mirrors:
The worn brake discs
- The adjudicator remarked that both parties were in agreement that the vehicle’s rear brake discs were worn.
- The adjudicator also stated the vehicle was able to cover 6,000 miles in six months before they were found to be wearing. Had they been worn prior to sale, the vehicle would not have been able to cover this distance. Also, the vehicle passed an MOT a month before sale with no advisories with the brakes. If issues had been identified, this would have been apparent during the pre-sale MOT.
- The adjudicator also noted that, at the time of the service, the brakes were only marked as an amber advisory concern, as there was nothing wrong with them, but that they may need to be replaced in the near future.
• This was seemingly confirmed, as the vehicle failed its MOT the following year in July 2023 due to the pads being less than 1.5 mm in thickness, at which point, it had accrued an additional 4,000 miles (there were 51,600 miles on the clock). - Therefore, it was concluded that the amount of mileage the vehicle was able to cover before the brakes needed changing, would suggest their inevitable replacement was due to expected wear rather than there being any inherent defect.
The starter battery
- The adjudicator stated that a typical battery lasts between three and five years. In this case, the battery failed after four and half years, where six of those months had been under the ownership of the consumer.
- The evidence also pointed to the fact that the battery had failed due to wear and tear, rather than being the result of a defect.
- Therefore, it was concluded that that the battery was functioning as intended, and its eventual replacement was down to wear and tear.
- In summary, while there were issues with the battery and rear brakes after six months of usage, this was put down to wear and tear, and no fault was identified.
The folding mirrors
- Upon examining the video and written health check, the technician did not make any mention or reference to finding an issue with the folding mirrors.
- In addition, the consumer was not able to provide any evidence to suggest this was the case. Therefore, no further action could be taken on this point.
- Based on the evidence provided, no element of the consumer’s complaint was upheld in their favour.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudication outcome, but the consumer did not respond in the allocated time, meaning the case was then closed.
