SUV engine seizure

The consumer’s issue:

“I purchased a three-year-old used SUV from a dealership in March 2017 for the sum of £15,000. At the time, the car had less than 10,000 miles on the odometer, and I subsequently serviced it in line with the recommended intervals. Early in December in 2019, I was driving on the motorway, when the engine suddenly seized, and the car broke down. The vehicle was taken to the dealership for an investigation, and I was advised that a replacement engine would be needed.  

The manufacturer was involved at this point, and they had offered the replacement engine free of charge, but that the installation labour would not be covered. The dealership originally charged me £1,212 for the labour, which included VAT, but I complained to customer services, and the cost of labour was reduced to £945.

As a resolution to my complaint, I am seeking a full refund of the labour cost, as I had bought this vehicle almost as new. I do not feel that the car’s engine should have failed so soon after buying it. I have also discovered that other customers have experienced similar problems to those that I encountered.”   

The accredited business’ response:

  • The manufacturer had originally agreed to contribute 50% towards the cost of a replacement engine. However, after having conversations with the manufacturer, they then decided to pay the total cost on behalf of the customer.
  • We had advised the consumer that our cost for the labour would be £1121.40. Indeed, the customer did seek some assistance from us with this cost, and we decided to reduce the cost to £945 as a goodwill gesture. This was to recognise the loyalty that the customer had shown our company. We also reduced our labour rate from £89 VAT per hour, to £75+VAT per hour as a further gesture of goodwill.
  • We would point out that the vehicle was purchased from us in March 2017 and had been registered in March 2014. The engine was then replaced just before the vehicle was six years of age, and after having completed 56,709 miles. This equated to an increase of around 16,000 miles a year.
  • Whilst we did note that the customer had referred to other examples of consumers experiencing engine concerns, these had come from an online forum, and we dispute the credibility of this evidence.

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 issue was present at the point of sale, and that this problem 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 the fault with the vehicle was present at the point of sale. The adjudicator noted that the fault with the vehicle was discovered more than six months from the point of sale. Therefore, the Consumer Rights Act provides that it is presumed that the fault was not present at the point of sale, and the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the fault was there at the time of purchase.
  • In the circumstances of this case, the adjudicator pointed out that, whilst taking into account the age and mileage of the vehicle, this evidence alone would not be sufficient to show on the balance of probabilities that the fault was present at the point of sale.
  • The adjudicator recommended to the customer 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 present at the point of sale.
  • Therefore, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld due to the lack of evidence that the fault with the vehicle was there when they bought the SUV.

Conclusion:

  • The business responded accepting the adjudicator’s decision. However, the consumer did not respond, and the case was closed due to a lack of any further evidence or updates.