The consumer’s issue:
“When I purchased my used 64-plate compact SUV in January 2018, I noticed a slight squeaking noise when accelerating between 20 and 30 mph. At the time, I initially thought this was due to the snow, but the issue continued in April. I raised the problem with the selling dealership, but they stated that the vehicle only had a 60-day warranty which had expired.
I therefore complained to my finance company, and they raised a dispute with the dealership. My car was booked in for an inspection in June 2018 and they found a fault with the brake discs and pads. I paid £179.90 for new brakes to be fitted, but I noticed these were also making a squeaking noise, which continued for about four weeks. I booked the car back in for another inspection and they said that new brake shims were required. The dealership fitted these free of charge.
Again, the noise was still present, so I took the car to a third party dealership which was closer to my home. They charged me £50 for the investigation and found that the alternator belt and tensioner needed to be replaced. After complaining to the selling dealership, they agreed to refund the initial cost of the brakes, the diagnostic test and the works carried out by the third party dealership, which came to £303.56.
All seemed OK until February 2019 when I took the car to another third party garage chain, and they said that the brakes the dealership fitted in June 2018 were actually too small for the vehicle and had not been greased. I had to pay £103.11 to have the brakes replaced and complained to the dealer about this, but they would not accept responsibility. I am therefore seeking a refund of this sum to resolve my complaint, as I don’t believe I should have to pay this amount.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer purchased the car in January 2018, and the first repair was in June 2018 when we changed the brake discs and pads.
- In August 2018, we replaced the brake shims and advised the customer to take the car to a local dealership belonging to the manufacturer.
- The customer proceeded to do this, and they found that the alternator belt and pulley needed to be replaced. We paid for these repairs.
- It was not until February 2019 that the customer took the car to a third party garage to replace the brakes as these were the wrong size.
- We have provided the job cards relating to the work we carried out, and we are of course concerned that incorrect parts have been fitted. We have checked the part numbers supplied and confirm these do meet the manufacturer’s specifications. However, we were given no opportunity to inspect the removed components, thereby making further investigations impossible.
- As we did not diagnose the cause of the noise, and did not have the opportunity to inspect the parts taken off the vehicle, we cannot be held responsible for the cost of £103.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, the business had an obligation to ensure that the customer’s car was of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described at the point of sale.
- The vehicle suffered from various faults since the customer bought it. As these were identified within the first six months of purchase, it was evidentially presumed that the faults were inherent and most likely present at the point of sale.
- The business did accept that the car had suffered from problems relating to the brakes, the alternator and pulley, and the adjudicator accepted that the business had reimbursed the consumer for these repairs.
- The business however did not agree that it was responsible for the cost of the replacement of the brakes carried out by the third party garage chain in February 2019 as it had not had a chance to inspect the components.
- The adjudicator did find it was reasonable for the consumer to take the vehicle to an established and experienced third party garage chain considering the distance and time this would have taken to visit the selling dealership.
- Their investigations found that incorrect brake discs were fitted to the vehicle and on the balance of probability, taking into account the car’s history with the brakes, it was the conclusion of the adjudicator that it was more likely than not, that the wrong brake pads were fitted by the business. They therefore recommended that the consumer was reimbursed the sum of £103 due to a breach of the Vehicle Sales Code.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, but the consumer failed to respond, closing the case.
