The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a premium hatchback from a dealership, and was told that the car was in an excellent condition. Around one year following their purchase, after only around 2,000 miles, she had to change the front brake pads and discs due to corrosion at a cost of around £300. The consumer was then also told the rear pads and discs required replacement in the near future.
The consumer complained to the retailer that sold them the car, and asked for the money paid for the work to be reimbursed, and to fix the rear brakes at no cost on the premise that they made the purchase based on the fact that they would not to have to pay for any costly repairs. However, the retailer explained that the responsibility of maintaining the vehicle sat with the consumer, and that the brakes and discs were well above the approved used standard at the point of sale.
The consumer also advised that they did not receive a valid MOT certificate at the point of sale which subsequently caused them to receive a £100 fine. To resolve their dispute, the consumer was seeking reimbursement of both the cost of the new pads and discs, and the penalty.
The case outcome:
After reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, the ombudsman advised that brakes were a ‘wear and tear’ component, a part which suffers a variable amount of wear based upon use, and that pads and discs are intended to be replaced several times over the lifetime of the vehicle. As such, the brakes failing a year after sale was not unexpected, and did not necessarily render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality.
The ombudsman noted in the pre-sale checklist that the brake pad and disc wear were within the manufacturer’s approved used standard and well above the minimum legal limit. The ombudsman therefore concluded that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality.
The ombudsman also noted that corrosion on brakes can form very quickly, but it is usually not an issue, as it is cleared when the brakes are operated. Considering the minimal number of miles which were travelled from the point of sale, the ombudsman found it more likely the corrosion had formed after the sale, and therefore did not consider that the hatchback was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of sale. As such, no further action was taken on these points.
The ombudsman requested details of the fine received by the consumer in regards to the absence of a valid MOT certificate, but no details were provided. The ombudsman noted the alleged date of the fine was over a year after the vehicle was sold to the consumer. The ombudsman checked the MOT history and found that an MOT was completed on the vehicle one day before the sale, meaning there was a valid certificate. The ombudsman held that it was the consumer’s responsibility to ensure the vehicle had a valid MOT whilst the vehicle was in their possession. There was also no legal requirement that a paper copy was issued.
Furthermore, the ombudsman did remark that there was a previous fault with the vehicle’s computer system which had been repaired already. The ombudsman partially upheld the complaint on this basis, but found the repair completed was an adequate remedy. As a result, no further action was required.