The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used 15-plate diesel SUV in July 2021 with around 45,000 miles on the clock from a franchise dealership. I immediately discovered that two of the seatbelts were not working, and the sunroof opened and jammed, meaning I was unable to close it.
In addition, within four days of owning the SUV, the car broke down, but the engine was still running and I was unable to turn it off. Due to the vehicle overheating, I was forced to call the fire brigade, and they made the car safe.
I had the vehicle recovered back to the seller at my own expense, and explained to the business that I was rejecting the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act, and requested a full refund. However, the business refused this, and instead, offered a courtesy car, whilst also telling me that I had to take the vehicle back after it had been repaired.
I do not believe that the vehicle is fit for purpose, plus I also have an 85-year-old vulnerable mother who I need to support with access to a reliable car.”
The accredited business’ response:
- Once we had been notified by the customer about the issues with their vehicle, a courtesy car was supplied to ensure that they were not inconvenienced, and was never conditional on them accepting their vehicle back following repairs.
- Upon investigation, the problem with both the seatbelts and sunroof was found to be the result of a build-up of sand in both mechanisms causing the systems to jam. These were cleaned and greased, thereby resolving the problem.
- In regards to the vehicle breaking down, the starter motor had suffered a failure, something that was covered under the terms of the customer’s warranty. The consumer was advised of this and authorised the replacement starter motor and the return of their vehicle.
- From this point onwards, we were not advised of any further issues with their car.
- Under the Sale Of Goods Act, we are entitled to make a repair and return the vehicle to the consumer, and have responded quickly to the customer’s concerns. We do not believe therefore, that we have breached our obligations.
The adjudication outcome:
- From all the available evidence, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, while no technical documentation had been provided, both parties agreed that there were faults to the SUV’s seatbelts and sunroof, as well as to the starter motor, which resulted in the vehicle breaking down.
- The business subsequently declared that these issues had been repaired.
- As The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator found that any faults were likely to be present at the point of sale, because of a lack of evidence by the business demonstrating they were not inherent problems, this pointed to a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
- Furthermore, taking into account that the faults were established so soon after purchase, the adjudicator concluded that the vehicle did not meet the standard a reasonable person would deem of satisfactory quality on the balance of probabilities.
- It was also not reasonable to expect the vehicle’s starter motor to suffer a failure to such an extent so soon after purchase, which therefore suggested the vehicle was not fit for the purpose it was intended.
- As a result, the adjudicator concluded the consumer was entitled to reject the vehicle.
- The consumer agreed with the adjudication outcome, but the business rejected the decision, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.
- Their rationale was that sand within the sunroof mechanism was introduced after the consumer’s purchase, whilst also advising that the starter motor could not have been faulty at the point of sale, as the vehicle was driven away.
- The business also argued they were entitled to repair the vehicle under the Sale of Goods Act.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and noted the business was referring to the incorrect legislation for this purchase.
- As the vehicle was bought after 1st October 2015, the relevant law to consider in this case was the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 was only relevant to business-to-consumer contracts formed before 1st October 2015, and business-to-business contracts.
- The ombudsman found that, due to the short length of time the consumer had been in possession of the vehicle before reporting the issues, on balance, there was a problem with the SUV’s starter motor at the point of sale.
- The ombudsman also noted that the starter motor is usually expected to last the lifetime of the vehicle. As such, it was unreasonable for it to have failed on a vehicle with only 45,000 miles on the clock.
- Based on the facts of the case, they also deemed the seatbelts and sunroof mechanism to be defective at the time of sale, meaning the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality on this point.
- In summary, the dispute was upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the ombudsman concluded the consumer was entitled to reject the vehicle.
- The Consumer Rights Act has a specific provision that entitles consumers to reject goods and receive a full refund if they are found to be of unsatisfactory quality within 30 days from the point of delivery. This is known as the short-term right to reject.
- The ombudsman noted that the consumer had made a clear statement that they wished to receive a refund, and that this should have been honoured by the dealership.
- Due to the length of time that had since passed since the sale, the ombudsman found it would be unfair to provide a full refund of the vehicle, as the consumer had had use of the vehicle for nearly three years.
- The ombudsman thereby awarded a depreciated refund of the vehicle to account for mileage, but further reduced the deduction to account for the fact the consumer had been unreasonably denied the short-term right to reject.
- The ombudsman also recommended the business completed further training for its customer service staff, as the Consumer Rights Act had been in force for eight years at the time of the decision. Had the business’s staff been aware of this, the complaint could have been resolved far sooner.
Conclusion:
- The business and consumer accepted the ombudsman’s final decision, and the vehicle was rejected as requested.
