The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a new hatchback from a dealership in November 2015. I had used this vehicle for around three and a half years without any problems, but in July 2019, whilst I was driving along the motorway, the panel that surrounds the sunroof on my car lifted off and flew away. To me, it was obvious that the adhesive had failed, as I could not see any other damage to either the sunroof or the windscreen.
I complained to the dealership that sold me the vehicle and asked them why the adhesive had failed within just three and a half years, but they said that they could not assist me with this. I have seen on online forums relating to my vehicle that the adhesive used on other vehicles was also faulty on other cars and parts. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to repair my vehicle at no cost to me.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The vehicle was brought into our dealership in July 2019, and our inspection could not find any manufacturing fault which could be related to the bonding and adhesive.
- As some of the parts were not available for us to look at, it made it very difficult for us to establish whether anything had caused the panel to detach externally.
- To our knowledge, this is not a known issue within the vehicle, and we have never encountered this before at a dealership level.
- The design of this vehicle is such that the panel follows the bodyline of the roof and the aerodynamics involved would push the panel down rather than lift it in the way that the consumer described.
- We are empathetic towards the consumer’s situation, but we are of the view that the cost of repairing the trim lies with them in this instance.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that there was a fault with the vehicle, that the problem was present at the point of sale, and that it was not commensurate to the relevant factors of the vehicle (such as its age, mileage, price, condition etc).
- The adjudicator found that there was no dispute amongst the parties that there was a fault with the vehicle.
- The adjudicator then moved to consider whether it was present at the point of sale. The adjudicator noted that the fault was discovered more than six months from the point of sale. Therefore, the Consumer Rights Act presumes that the fault was not present at the point of sale and the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that it was there when they bought the car.
- In the circumstances of this case, the adjudicator pointed out that some independent technical evidence would be necessary to support the consumer’s conclusion that the fault with the vehicle was more likely than not to be present at the point of sale.
- Therefore, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld due to the lack of evidence to support this.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, but the consumer did not respond, and the case was closed due to a lack of any further evidence or updates.
