The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 19-plate hatchback from a dealership in July 2019 and, at the time, I was assured that a satellite navigation system could be retrospectively fitted as the car didn’t have one. As there was not a device available that could be installed when buying the vehicle, we were told there would be one by the end of the year, and would cost a total of £1,000.
However, we were then informed that the satellite navigation was only available as a factory fitted option or with a new dashboard fitted into the car, meaning that we have been quoted a much higher price of £3,500.
To resolve this complaint, I would like my car to be fitted with an integrated system and for the dealership to pay for the supply of the device and installation.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have made an offer to the customer to supply and fit the satellite navigation system at cost price, which we believe to be fair and reasonable.
- Ultimately it was the customer’s decision to buy the car, as demonstrated by their correspondence with us.
- We regret that the specific vehicle the customer desired was not available at the time, but we can only offer cars that we have.
- If the customer would like to proceed with our offer to fit the satellite navigation system at cost price, we will be happy to make the necessary arrangements.
The adjudication outcome:
- As per The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code, the business had an obligation to ensure that the customer was provided with information that may affect their decision to purchase.
- The customer complained they were told that a satellite navigation system could be fitted at a later date, which the business did not deny, and subsequently confirmed that this could be done at cost. Therefore the adjudicator concluded that the information provided at the time was accurate and not misleading.
- The adjudicator also found there was no evidence to demonstrate that assurances were made about supplying and fitting the system at a cost of £1,000.
- As there was nothing to suggest that the customer had been misled in regards to the price, the adjudicator could not uphold their complaint on this point.
- Therefore, based on the above, the adjudicator found that there had been no breaches of the Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, and could therefore not rule in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudication outcome and reiterated their offer to fit the satellite navigation system at cost price. The customer also accepted the decision, and the case was closed.
