The consumer’s issue:
In December 2022, the consumer purchased a used 68-plate hatchback from a dealership. Before buying the car, the customer pointed out that there were scratches on the vehicle’s door sills, and the business agreed to have these removed at the point of sale.
However, several months passed after the consumer took ownership without the business rectifying the issue, despite them contacting the dealership on multiple occasions. In addition, the consumer claimed that the valet at the time of handover was not carried out to an acceptable standard.
To bring their dispute to a close, the customer requested compensation to the value of £1,000, as well as an apology for the delays to complete the agreed repairs and for the sub-standard level of customer service provided by the retailer.
The case outcome:
Upon reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that second hand vehicles may have cosmetic damage present at the point of sale due to previous use. She remarked that, whilst this may not indicate a vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality, it had to be determined, in this case, what the promise was, by the dealership, to rectify the damage at the point of sale.
It was clear from the documentation provided that the business agreed to repaint the door sills where the scratches were identified at the point of sale. However, after the bodywork repair was carried out, the consumer remained dissatisfied, and the dealership therefore carried out further work. Nevertheless, what remained unclear at this stage, was whether it was agreed that the scratches would be ‘removed’ or simply ‘repainted’.
Since the bodywork repair was attempted on two occasions, and the extent of the rectification work could not be substantiated, there was insufficient evidence to verify the specifics of the agreement of this work outlined at the point of sale, meaning this element of the customer’s dispute could not be upheld.
The adjudicator then turned to the standard of the valet carried out to the vehicle, and on this point, the dealership agreed that the car was not cleaned as thoroughly as it should have been. In light of this, and by way of an apology, the dealership awarded the cost of a valet to be completed elsewhere, meaning this part of the customer’s complaint was upheld in their favour.
The adjudicator then discussed whether the level of customer care was satisfactory in terms of the level of communication provided by the business. It was noted that insufficient evidence was supplied to demonstrate that the dealership did not provide appropriate responses, and that attempts to contact the customer were not made.
It was determined by the adjudicator that, since the dealership offered two repairs to meet the consumer’s expectations relating to the vehicle scratches, the adjudicator was unable to conclude that sufficient customer care was not provided by the dealership. As a result, this element of the consumer’s complaint was not upheld in their favour. Instead, the adjudicator instructed the dealership to issue a formal apology for the standard in which the valet was carried out in the first instance.
