The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand new ’18-plate hatchback in January 2018, and three months later, with just 2,384 miles on the clock, the vehicle suffered from a loss of power, and multiple warning lights showed on the dashboard.
I therefore took the car back to the selling dealership, and after inspecting it, they found the oil level was low, so they topped up the oil and cleared the fault codes. The vehicle was fine until September 2018, when during a long 500-mile journey (I checked the oil level before setting off in accordance with the manual), the car stalled with a heavy smell of burnt oil. The car was taken back to the dealership, and they agreed that oil was still leaking and replaced three oil seals.
The same issue happened again during a long journey, and two seals were replaced, including one that had previously been changed. As oil was continuing to leak, the car was taken back for another inspection by a specialist engineer in November 2018. It was found that the car needed a new engine, and it took approximately 10 weeks to the complete repair, as the vehicle was only returned at the end of January 2019.
I was also charged £300 for parking sensors which were not originally fitted to the car (they should have cost £162.50+VAT), but I only received £165 back, which excluded a refund of the VAT I paid. I have also not received compensation of £360 I have paid for the extra oil my car has used.
To resolve the matter, I am therefore seeking a refund of the cost of mileage for returning the car to the business on multiple occasions (£227), the difference in the cost of the sensors that I paid (£135), the cost of the additional oil (£360) and £1660 for the days that I was left without a like-for-like vehicle, a total of £2,382. In addition, I am looking for compensation of £2,000 for the distress and inconvenience this matter has caused during a one-year period. My total claim is therefore £4,382.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer purchased the vehicle from our dealership in January 2018 with a manufacturer’s warranty.
- As a car is a mass of components, sometimes these fail and will require replacing or repairing, which is the case with this vehicle.
- The manufacturer covered the cost of the faulty components (oil seals and engine) and we, the dealership, provided the consumer with a courtesy car for the duration of the repairs, although this was not a like-for-like, as there were only a finite number of loan cars available.
- The consumer also added 2,300 miles to the courtesy vehicle, which they were not charged for.
- The manufacturer offered £50 to cover the fuel costs, and we offered to fill the tank free of charge on the customer’s next visit to our premises.
- They also said that they would reimburse any additional oil costs (i.e. the £360), if the consumer could provide a copy of the receipts, as well as £100 as compensation for not being kept in a like-for-like car.
- In addition, the manufacturer previously offered to cover the cost of the second and third services on the car, but the customer refused this, and they also explained that no further goodwill could be provided to cover the £2,000 cost for the distress caused to the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator reviewed the evidence, and found that there was a breach of the sales contract by the business, as the vehicle had suffered from inherent faults which were more likely than not, present at the point of sale.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator did however state that all repairs had been carried out and was considered to be a successful remedy under The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
- The consumer had claimed for losses of £4,382, but the adjudicator noted there was no evidence to confirm these.
- The adjudicator was also satisfied that a courtesy vehicle was provided for the duration of the repairs, so the customer did not suffer from a loss of use, and the consumer was also offered two free services. They also noted that the full cost of the parking sensors was refunded and contributions had been made towards the fuel expenses incurred by the consumer.
- It was equally explained to the customer that compensation could not be provided for loss of time, inconvenience or stress.
- The adjudicator was satisfied that, between the business and the manufacturer, the consumer was awarded sufficient goodwill.
- Having reviewed all the evidence provided, the adjudicator concluded that the customer had not been able to demonstrate financial losses as a result of the business’ actions. Therefore, they recommended that the dealership took no further action.
- However, whilst the adjudicator believed the Vehicle Sales Code had been breached, they were satisfied with the offers already made to the consumer as a resolution to their dispute.
Conclusion:
- Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed with no further action taken by either party.