The consumer’s issue:
“On 18 March 2017, I purchased a brand new sports car from a main dealer. In April 2021, the vehicle suffered from a fault, and the car was taken back to the selling dealership for investigation. They found that water ingress was present in the sealed wiring loom connectors behind the glovebox, and both wiring looms needed to be replaced.
The selling dealership contacted the manufacturer directly to see whether they would contribute towards the repairs. The manufacturer agreed to cover the cost of the parts, but I was informed that I would be liable for paying for the labour.
I was unhappy that I had to make a financial contribution, as I believe that the water ingress occurred at the time of production, or that the wiring looms were impacted before the vehicle was built.
The retailer advised that the repairs could only be conducted according to the manufacturer’s protocols, and therefore a complete wiring loom replacement was required. The labour quoted for the repair was £1,800, and the work was estimated to take up to two months. I authorised the repairs, as I needed the vehicle, but I dispute that I am liable for having to pay for any element of the work undertaken.
To resolve my complaint, I would like to be refunded for the £1,800 I had to pay for labour, as I do not believe the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer authorised the repairs to start on 03 June 2021. The consumer accepted a goodwill gesture from the manufacturer to cover the cost of the parts, but advised that she would be pursuing the manufacturer to reclaim the cost of the repair.
- The consumer felt that cause of the breakdown was due to a manufacturing defect or that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality.
- The consumer advised that her complaint was not against us as the selling dealership, but with the manufacturer. However, at the time of the fault, the vehicle was outside of the manufacturer’s warranty period.
- In summary, we do not feel that we are liable to cover the labour cost for the repair, as there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when we sold the sports car to the customer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, a business has an obligation to ensure that a vehicle is of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator noted that the issue occurred approximately four years after the consumer bought the 17-plate sports car. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Vehicle Sales Code, if a fault is identified outside of the first six months of purchase, the consumer has the evidential burden of demonstrating that the fault was more likely than not to be present when they bought the car.
- Whilst it was identified that both wiring looms suffered from water damage and required replacement, the dealership could not identify any areas of water ingress, nor could it provide any explanation as to how the damage occurred.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that the issue was the result of external influence, and had this been present four years ago at the point of sale, it was likely that the fault would have occurred much sooner.
- The consumer did not provide any documentary or technical evidence to substantiate their opinion that the fault was inherent at the point of sale, and therefore the adjudicator was unable to conclude that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality.
- After reviewing the facts of the case, the selling dealership could not be held liable for the problem with the wiring looms, meaning the complaint could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
