The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new saloon in October 2019, and at the point of sale, it was recommended that I took out a paint and upholstery protection product, so I every time I washed the car, it would have a showroom shine (without the need for a polish). By April 2020, the car was covered with smear marks, so I raised a complaint with the dealership and manufacturer of the product, and they said that the smear marks were the result of me taking the car to a carwash which uses dirty cloths, but no facility uses clean cloths.
My issue is that at no point was I given any instructions about how to use the product or the limitations of it, and that I needed to use a specialist car wash at a substantially higher cost to ensure the product could perform. Also, the document sent to me in June 2021, 20 months after the sale of product, had different information compared to what I was given when I bought the car nearly two years prior.
As a result of purchasing the product, which was recommended by the dealer, the condition of the paintwork on the car is very poor and substandard. However, the dealership is refusing to assist any further because, as far as they are concerned, there were no faults or issues with the product.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for compensation to pay for a mobile car wash and valeting service, where they come to your door and wash your vehicle using new cloths and specialist products. This costs between £85 to £120 depending on the service.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have never had any issues or complaints about the vehicle protection product as it is so easy to use.
- We cannot be held responsible if the consumer has washed their car incorrectly. Looking at the pictures, it is clear to see that there are smear marks on the bodywork, and therefore they should raise their concerns with the manufacturer of the product.
- We therefore dispute that we have any liability as claimed by the customer, or that we have breached our legal obligations.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that there had been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code, and that the cause of the fault was present at the point of sale i.e. that it was not due to external influences, such as how the car was washed and cleaned, for example.
- Upon review of the consumer’s comments, the adjudicator noted that a pamphlet was provided to the customer at the point of sale. This meant the business had met their obligation by providing the available product literature to the customer.
- The consumer had raised an issue that the content of the product literature failed to adequately explain how the car should be cleaned for a claim to succeed.
- The adjudicator noted the business could not be fairly held liable for the content of the product literature supplied by another provider.
- There was also no technical evidence submitted by the consumer showing the vehicle provided did not meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory considering its age, mileage and the price paid for it.
- Therefore, it was concluded that the business was not in breach of the Vehicle Sales Code, meaning the adjudicator could not fairly conclude the business should be held liable to absorb the cost of the repair or offer any further award to the customer.
- Therefore, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- The business, nor the consumer, offered a response to the decision within the timeframe provided. As a result, the case was closed.
