The consumer’s issue:
The consumer bought a brand-new compact SUV from a dealership for around £25,000, and chose a lower specification vehicle to keep their monthly finance repayments affordable.
However, when the vehicle was delivered, they explained that a number of the expected features were missing from their perspective, including the much-needed automated tailgate function.
In response, the retailer said there was no evidence that the feature had been specifically requested and that customers are responsible for ensuring essential requirements are made known to them prior to purchase and checked before ordering. The business equally noted that lower monthly payments would naturally result in a vehicle with a lower grade of specification.
The consumer was looking for the missing features to be addressed, and for the sensor to be installed at no cost to themselves to resolve their dispute.
The case outcome:
The adjudicator reviewed the documentation provided, and noted that, although the consumer says that they explained the vehicle specification that was indispensable during the sales process, and the fact that the automated tailgate feature with the key fob was an essential part of the new specification, there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this was the case. Therefore, no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code was identified, and the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
The consumer disagreed with the outcome, and requested a final decision from an ombudsman, as they argued that the car sold was not fit for purpose according to their requirements.
The ombudsman reviewed the facts of the case and accepted that the consumer expected the replacement vehicle to retain certain features and that it can be difficult to establish exactly what was discussed when conversations were largely verbal.
However, the evidence showed the consumer was moving from a higher specification vehicle to a lower specification model, and had actively engaged in selecting features for the replacement vehicle.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the ombudsman concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the disputed feature had been specifically requested or promised by the business. On the balance of probabilities, it was therefore deemed that the business had not provided misleading information or breached the Vehicle Sales Code. The complaint was therefore not upheld.
Key learning point:
Where a consumer has particular features that are important to them, those requirements should be clearly identified and agreed during the sales process. If there is no documented evidence that a feature was specifically requested or promised, it may be difficult to show that a vehicle was mis-sold.
