The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a used 2018 SUV from a franchise dealership in August 2020. Around four years later, in July 2024, the consumer reported that the vehicle experienced a complete failure of the power steering system whilst driving. It was highlighted that a diagnostic by an independent garage identified a fault code, indicating an internal failure of the steering rack motor due to water ingress.
The consumer was advised by the dealer that they confirmed the same issue with the steering rack, but they did not detect the same fault code recorded by the independent garage. The consumer believed that the steering failure was not due to wear and tear, but the result of a manufacturing defect, as per the fault code and numerous other cases seen online, involving similar failures for the same vehicle model.
The business investigated the power steering issue in September 2024 which found that the power steering rack was the faulty component and required replacing due to internal component failure. The dealership explained that they had authority as a retailer to overrule any decision made by the manufacturer, and as the vehicle had no form of warranty, this is the reason the consumer was required to pay for the repairs.
To resolve their complaint, the customer was seeking a full reimbursement of the cost of repair to the steering rack, which amounted to £2,653.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the account of events from both parties. They noted that, as the issue arose more than six months after the sale of the vehicle, the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the SUV suffered from an inherent fault which was present at the point of purchase.
The adjudicator acknowledged the consumer’s submission in relation to the independent diagnostic report which identified the fault code and the information from social media that other vehicle owners experienced the same issue with their car. However, as no independent report had been provided for consideration in this case, the adjudicator was unable to take into account this aspect of the complaint.
Furthermore, the adjudicator explained that The Motor Ombudsman does not take social media commentary as a viable source of information, and this was not sufficient evidence to verify that the consumer’s vehicle had suffered the same fault as other owners.
The adjudicator also found that while the power steering rack fault was caused by water ingress, they did not receive sufficient evidence showing that the water ingress was inherent at the point of sale, such as it being caused by a manufacturing defect. The adjudicator concluded that it was likely that it would have become apparent sooner if the fault was a result of how the car was made.
Conclusion:
Based upon the evidence provided, the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no award was made. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.
Key learning point:
Disputes about faults that occur a considerable period after the purchase highlight the importance of independent evidence to substantiate a case.
Claims made by consumers must be supported by reliable technical reports rather than informal or anecdotal sources, such as social media commentary, as this does not necessarily justify that there are faults with the vehicle in question.
