The consumer’s issue:
“Shortly after buying a three-year-old cabriolet in August 2018, I noticed that the soft top roof was showing signs of fraying in several places. It was not just a crease or fold mark in the fabric, but an actual deterioration and break-up of the material through normal use of the car. I took the vehicle back to the selling dealership in October 2018 for some minor bodywork scratches to be repaired. At the same time, I informed the business of the issue with the roof, and asked them to investigate if there was a problem with how it was folding or if there was any other cause. When I collected the vehicle, I was informed that the soft top roof was operating correctly and there was nothing wrong with the mechanical operation.
Still not happy with the situation, I took the car back to the dealer in January 2019 for the service and asked them again to investigate the problem. This time, the business took pictures and agreed to get back to me. It took various phone calls and e-mails from myself for them to finally to respond in April 2019, and they told me that the deterioration was normal “wear and tear” and could not help any further.
They suggested I contact the vehicle manufacturer to ask them to look at the issue, and their investigation found that, although there was evidence of fraying, this was not covered by the warranty, and as such, they could offer no further action to repair the vehicle. I find this situation very hard to believe because the car was still covered by the manufacturer’s standard three-year warranty when I raised the issue with the dealer and the vehicle manufacturer in October 2018 and January 2019. I am therefore looking for the dealer or manufacturer to replace the soft top roof fabric as per the terms of the warranty agreement.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We apologised to the consumer for his concerns and disappointment with the vehicle and agreed to look into the matter for them.
- We also spoke to the dealership, and they checked the roof and were unable to find any cause of the wear marks. They referred to the owner’s manual, which advised pressure creases can appear when the roof is stowed when damp. They also stated that the soft top roof was not covered by the warranty.
- To conclude, no manufacturing defect could be found, and therefore no warranty claim could be made, and similarly, no goodwill could be offered to the customer in these circumstances.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator concluded that the evidence that was submitted did not demonstrate that it was more likely than not that the issue with the soft top roof was the result of poor workmanship or materials used during the manufacturing process.
- A manufacturer is legally obliged to repair a vehicle and cover the cost of the components which fail as a result of a manufacturing defect during the warranty period.
- The adjudicator recognised that the car was covered by the manufacturer’s warranty at the time of the dispute, and that the consumer was looking to have the issue rectified by the manufacturer.
- However, the consumer’s warranty did come with certain exclusions, and in this case, it applied to the roof.
- As a result, the adjudicator ruled that the vehicle manufacturer had not breached The Motor Ombudsman’s New Car Code, and the consumer’s claim was not upheld.
Conclusion:
- The customer accepted the outcome as recommended by The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator, and the case was closed.
