The consumer’s issue:
“In February 2022, I purchased a used 16-plate hatchback from a dealership with around 113,000 miles on the clock. Three months later, the car broke down, and the recovery service was unable to fix it at the roadside. My vehicle was therefore taken to a franchise dealership to investigate the issue. When they removed the sump, the oil was full of aluminium shards, and they also found a large chunk of aluminium. This was what was causing the engine to seize.
I bought this vehicle in good faith, believing there was no faults present, and the seller was trying to mask these issues by saying a service was done. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the seller of my car to offer me a like-for-like replacement to the value of around £6,200, as having no vehicle is causing serious problems for my work and daily commitments.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer indicated that their rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 had been breached, but we dispute this, as the vehicle was not faulty at the point of sale.
- The following day, after collecting the vehicle, the consumer sent a text saying the hatchback which we sold to them was wonderful to drive.
- The customer also indicated that they had driven over 3,000 miles since purchasing the car.
- With regards to the engine seizure being due to the oil and filter not being changed, we would like to reiterate that the car was serviced in January 2022 prior to the vehicle being sold. This included an oil and filter change, as well as a gearbox flush and a new slave cylinder.
- Therefore, we dispute the fact that we are to blame for the engine seizure.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator highlighted that, if a fault occurs within the first six months of a vehicle purchase, it is up to the business to prove the fault was not already present at the point of sale.
- Therefore, in this case, the seller had to demonstrate that the issue did not already exist when the customer bought the car.
- The adjudicator remarked that the pre-sale invoice, provided by the business, did show the vehicle had been serviced, and that the filters were changed.
- However, this directly contradicted the findings of the repairer, which found the vehicle looked like it hadn’t been serviced for at least a year due to the condition of the oil filter and the colour of the oil.
- The adjudicator noted that there were possible explanations to the conflicting evidence.
- These were namely that that the repairer was correct, and the vehicle had not been serviced prior to sale despite the seller’s claims, the seller did carry out a service, but did so with unreasonable skill and care, thereby causing the engine to seize, or the selling dealership did service the vehicle correctly, but the engine seizure was not related to the service, which then raised the question about what caused it to stop working.
- The adjudicator said that it was important to note that the core issue was not whether the vehicle was serviced prior to being sold, but rather whether the engine was devoid of these faults prior to sale.
- All three explanations implied there was problem with the engine, regardless of the servicing status, and the seller had failed to prove this was not the case.
- The adjudicator then noted the vehicle had already accrued 113,000 miles before purchase and, as such, it would have been subject to wear and tear on all the components.
- However, wear and tear is only a reasonable defence if the wear developed after the point of sale. And, a reasonable consumer would not expect a vehicle’s engine to seize or have to be declared as SORN only three months after purchasing it, regardless of it being used.
- The complaint was therefore upheld in the consumer’s favour, meaning they were entitled to a refund with deductions for use during their ownership of the hatchback.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted The Motor Ombudsman’s adjudicator’s findings, and the case was closed.
