The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand-new electric city car in October 2018, and three years later, I took the vehicle for its first MOT at an independent garage. However, it failed the test, due to excessive wear on the steering rack.
As the cost of repair was quoted at £540, I contacted a franchise dealer to make a claim under the three-year manufacturer’s warranty before it expired, so that this significant expense would be covered. However, this was request was declined.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am therefore looking for the manufacturer to contribute to the cost of rectifying the issue with the steering rack.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The independent garage reached out to our franchise dealership to find out whether the issue with the steering rack could be repaired under warranty.
- However, the business was advised that a decision could not be made unless an assessment of the vehicle was carried out by an approved dealer as mentioned in the warranty’s terms and conditions.
- We appreciate the cost was an unwelcomed surprise for the consumer, but a repair carried outside the network cannot be covered by the policy.
- Therefore, we are unable to provide any further assistance on this occasion.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator looked at the version of events of both parties, and noted in their decision that the evidential burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that the fault with the vehicle was the result of a manufacturing defect, and that the cost of repair should be covered under the warranty.
- The business and consumer did agree on the fact that the steering rack was faulty, but the supporting documentation did not show that the wearing of the steering rack was the result of poor workmanship or materials used during the manufacturing process.
- Since there was insufficient documentary evidence to demonstrate that the cause of the fault was due to a build defect, this meant that the manufacturer was under no obligation to contribute to the £540 cost of repair.
- As a result, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion
- The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome within the required timeframe, or provide any additional evidence in support of their complaint.
- As a result, the adjudicator proceeded to close the case.
