The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a high-performance SUV in January 2021. On delivery of the vehicle, I noticed that the cruise control failed to work. I took the car back to the dealership, and on further inspection, they found several other issues with the vehicle, which meant that £4,000 worth of repairs were needed.
The dealership offered me a part-exchange and a good deal for a new vehicle. The issue however is that they only offered me £38,500 for the vehicle, but an independent party would have paid me £40,000.
I agreed to part-exchange the vehicle with the dealership due to an attractive deal on the new car. However, I believe they should refund me the £1,500 difference to cover the fact that the third-party offered me £40,000. This would be an acceptable resolution to my complaint.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer originally purchased the vehicle for the price of £38,500. This is confirmed by the sales invoice.
- When accepting a part-exchange, we offered the customer £38,500, as this was the cost of the original transaction, meaning the customer has received his money back for the vehicle.
- The fact that a third-party offered him £40,000 is irrelevant. The customer is not £1,500 worse off, as they received a full refund for the price paid for the vehicle.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, the business had an obligation to ensure that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described at the point of sale.
- The vehicle had suffered various faults since being bought. As these were identified within the first six months of purchase, it was evidentially presumed that they were likely to be present at the point of sale.
- The business did accept that the vehicle had suffered faults, and therefore required substantial repairs.
- It was noted that the dealership offered to buy back the SUV from the customer at the full purchase price, or offer a part-exchange to the same value.
- Under the Code, if the business fails to fulfil their obligations, there are certain actions the business can remedy to resolve the complaint.
- In this case, the dealership reimbursed the full cost of the vehicle to the customer and fulfilled its obligations under the Code.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, whilst the consumer would have been able to obtain more money from a third-party, this is not something covered under the Code, plus the business had applied a successful remedy in the circumstances presented.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the case was closed.
