The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used sports car in November 2019. The following month, I noticed several paint defects, including bubbling and micro-blistering, so I reported these to the manufacturer. I was told to book the car in with my nearest dealership. Due to work commitments, I had to wait until February 2020 for an appointment. The car was inspected, and I waited to hear the result.
It has now been 33 weeks since the inspection, and I have still had no answer on whether the repairs will be covered under warranty. The lacquer is also lifting from the car each time I wash it and, having done some research, I have found that cars with this paint colour often experience defects.
I understand that Covid-19 has caused delays, but I think 33 weeks is beyond any reasonable standard of ‘delayed works’. There are defects on every paint panel, and because I have been waiting for so long for an answer, I am unable to raise a complaint with the selling dealership. The car needs a full respray and I would like the manufacturer to carry this out free of charge.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We referred the consumer to a bodyshop, and any communications were between the consumer and that bodyshop, which we have not been privy to.
- Having spoken with the technician who inspected the car, they confirmed that the repairs are not covered under warranty because the vehicle was previously repaired in 2015.
- They also said that they informed the customer of this outcome some time ago, and we have also advised the consumer of this as part of our response to his complaint.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides and found that there was no breach of the Code of Practice for New Cars.
- The previous repairs to the vehicle meant that further repairs would not be covered – this is because any warranty provided by the manufacturer is designed to protect the original paintwork and panels.
- Even if this were not the case, the customer had not provided any evidence to show the paint defects were caused by a manufacturing flaw, and whilst the adjudicator appreciated the research undertaken by the consumer online, this was not specific to his vehicle, and therefore did not sufficiently prove that the manufacturer should be held liable to cover the cost of the repairs.
- Consequently, the adjudicator did not uphold the complaint.
Conclusion:
- The manufacturer agreed with the outcome. The consumer informed The Motor Ombudsman that they were no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle, so did not wish to take the matter further. The case was therefore closed.
