The consumer’s issue:

The consumer purchased a brand-new diesel van from a franchise dealership for around £17,000. Soon after buying it, they noticed that the vehicle would stumble and hesitate after a couple of minutes, generally when in second gear. This posed a particular danger to the owner as they lived in a village and needed to join a fast-moving 60mph road. Due to the van stumbling, other traffic would start blowing their horns and drive around the consumer’s vehicle as it came to a standstill.

The consumer contacted the dealership, and they advised to bring the van in to diagnose the issue, but could not find a fault. The problem persisted, and the consumer returned the vehicle once again to the business for a period of eight weeks, only to inform the consumer that it was a characteristic of the van, which was not considered a satisfactory response from the consumer’s point of view.

However, with the onset of cold weather, the problem only got worse, and the consumer got back in touch with the dealership, where the business explained they had contacted the manufacturer about the issue, but did not have a solution, much to the frustration of the consumer.

As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking to have the issue fixed under their new car warranty, as they could not afford to part-exchange their van for a replacement, and incur a potential loss of around £7,000. Alternatively, they said they would have to wait until the temperature rose again above six degrees.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that there was a defect needing repair, and that the affected parts all fell under the remit of the manufacturer’s warranty.

Based on the evidence provided, and while there were multiple attempts to rectify the issue, and that it was inconvenient to the owner that the diesel engine took time to warm up during periods of cold weather, it did not demonstrate an inherent issue with the van, and was a characteristic of this model, as highlighted by the vehicle manufacturer. As such, the manufacturer was not liable for making any repairs and was not considered to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s New Car Code.

Conclusion:

In summary, the adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the issue resulted from a manufacturing defect, meaning they were unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.

Key learning point:

A vehicle manufacturer’s legal obligation to consumers would only apply to the warranty given. If a consumer believes that their vehicle has a design flaw or a characteristic, which they believe renders it of unsatisfactory quality, the correct party to raise a dispute against would be the seller. Even if the retailer has the same name as the manufacturer, they may be a different legal entity.