The consumer’s issue:
“Rust bubbles started to appear on the numberplate and tailgate of my vehicle within three years of buying it. A repair was carried out at a manufacturer-approved bodyshop under the warranty, but within a year, the rust reappeared and the manufacturer will not cover the cost of a replacement tailgate. I am also concerned that any future repairs will mean that the rust is likely to re-appear.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer pointed out that this area of the vehicle had been previously repaired by a bodyshop associated with the dealership which we can confirm was covered by our paintwork and corrosion warranty.
- Our Customer Service Manager looking after the consumer’s case contacted the dealer for their opinion on the recurring issue.
- They explained that as the rust had appeared in the same location that had previously been repaired, this would not be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty, as it would be classified as a rectification.
- As this was the case, the dealer advised that the customer should contact the bodyshop that carried out the initial repair, as it would be they that were liable.
- As it was the dealer who diagnosed that this was not a manufacturing fault, and no claim has been made to our warranty department, we are unable to assist further.
- Our suggestion remains that the customer needs to liaise with the bodyshop that completed the original repair, along with the dealer who arranged for the warranty claim to be processed.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the terms of use for the warranty in question. There was no limitation to prevent corrosion or complications from poor workmanship (it is not referenced in the non-exhaustive list for what in law is known as “force majeure” which is to cover things outside of the manufacturer’s control).
- However neither would it be proportionate to reasonably expect the workmanship of manufacturer-approved workshops to be “outside of their reasonable control.”
- The warranty explains the following: “the corrosion is due to a manufacturing or material fault or a problem concerning the application of anti-corrosion products to Vehicle metalwork (“Protection Products”) by a manufacturer or manufacturer Network Member.”
- This would imply that poor workmanship should be covered under the terms of the warranty.
- As per the terms of the document, it would be at the discretion of that repairer to suggest the most appropriate means of repair.
Conclusion:
- The adjudicator upheld the customer’s complaint and decided that it was within the terms of the warranty to have a repair undertaken.
- However, it was noted the most appropriate body to undertake the necessary assessment to determine the most appropriate means of repair was still the initial repairer. However as the warranty does not enforce location of repair, the consumer can take the car to another of the manufacturer’s authorised repairers.
