The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new 68-plate crossover in October 2018, and in June 2020, I noticed a problem with one of the buttons on my stereo system. Every time I pushed it, it clicked and felt like it was sinking into the unit. Over a period of four weeks, I tried to book an appointment with my local dealership, but because of Covid closures and restrictions, it was really difficult to find a time that could work. I also needed a service, and the business was struggling to do the service and the repair on the same day. The problem with the button kept getting worse.
Eventually, I was able to get my vehicle booked in, and the button was inspected. By this point, it had become stuck in the unit and couldn’t even be used. However, I was told that the problem was because of an external influence and that the warranty wouldn’t cover the cost of fixing it.
I know that the fault got worse, but this was only because I couldn’t get the dealership to look at it more quickly. Now they want £2,500 to resolve the defect, which I don’t think is fair. I would therefore like the accredited business to pay for the repair in full as a resolution to my complaint.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have liaised with our dealership and reviewed the claim. However, we consider the button sinking to be caused by an outside influence.
- In our view, the only way this damage could have been caused is from excessive force when using the button.
- This is not classed as a manufacturing defect and therefore we are unable to cover the concern under our warranty.
- Whilst we empathise with the consumer regarding the cost of the repair, there is no other fix available, and they are therefore responsible for paying for the issue to be rectified.
The adjudication outcome:
- The consumer had the evidential burden to show that the cause of the problem was due to a manufacturing defect covered by the warranty.
- Whilst the business understood that it had taken the consumer some time to get the vehicle booked in for an inspection, there was no evidence to suggest that the initial fault – the clicking sound when using the button, was the result of poor workmanship or materials used during the manufacturing process.
- Therefore, the adjudicator did not have grounds on which to uphold the consumer’s complaint, as there was no breach of the Code of Practice for New Cars.
- The consumer disagreed with the outcome, and requested a final decision from the ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman noted that the consumer had said that the button had deteriorated over a four-week period, and that they believed the initial repair would have been covered under warranty.
- However, no evidence had been provided showing that the original defect – prior to the four-week delay in getting the vehicle booked in – was a manufacturing defect.
- They also noted that the warranty excludes repair of damage to a problem which is made worse due to continued use.
- The ombudsman could not see how the initial clicking problem on its own would have worsened over four weeks. The only way this could have happened was if the consumer continued to press the button and ended up damaging it. Unfortunately, this would exclude her from accessing her warranty cover according to the terms and conditions set out above.
- The ombudsman explained that, while they accepted that there was a pandemic which caused cancellations and delays, this cannot automatically override the terms of the warranty. Had the button been essential, the ombudsman may have reached a different decision, but the consumer could have avoided using the button for the period of delay.
• Overall, the ombudsman found that there was no evidence of a manufacturing defect in the first place, so it was unclear if the problem would ever have been eligible to be covered under the warranty.
• Alongside this, there was no explanation about how the button could have sunk into the unit without being used. - Therefore, based on the evidence provided, it seemed more likely that it was an outside influence which caused the damage, and this would not be covered under the policy.
- In conclusion, the complaint could not be upheld by the ombudsman in the consumer’s favour, and the accredited business was not directed to do anything further.
Conclusion:
- Whilst the consumer was dissatisfied with the outcome, the final decision was the last stage in The Motor Ombudsman’s dispute resolution process, so the case was closed.
