The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 16-plate luxury SUV in November 2017 for £31,000 from a franchise dealership. In February 2020, and after the vehicle had been parked for 40 minutes, it suddenly and spontaneously caught fire and was completely destroyed.
My complaint is that a car of this quality, design and age should not suddenly self-ignite. I had only owned the vehicle for just over two years and had driven and maintained it in the correct manner. This should not have happened, and it is lucky that nobody was injured at the time of the fire. To resolve the complaint, I am looking for the replacement of the vehicle with a similar or equivalent model, or alternatively, for a full refund of £31,000 to be provided.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer purchased the car in November 2017, and it was not until February 2020 that the fire occurred.
- The customer should have had insurance in place to protect them for any circumstances such as these.
- The consumer is questioning the build quality of the vehicle, or more specifically the safety of the SUV, and therefore should have brought this to the attention of the manufacturer directly, rather than ourselves, the retailer.
- We were happy to assist with the matter, but the vehicle was declared a write-off.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under The Motor Ombudsman’s Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, a business has an obligation to ensure that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described at the point of sale.
- If a defect is discovered within the first six months of purchase, it is evidentially presumed that it is an inherent fault which would have been present at the point of sale, meaning the dealership has the evidential burden of proving otherwise.
- On the other hand, if the defect is discovered after the first six months of purchase, then it is evidentially presumed that the cause of the defect occurred after the sale, resulting in the consumer having the evidential burden of proving otherwise.
- The vehicle was purchased in November 2017, but the issue did not occur until more than two years after purchase.
- Due to the substantial nature of the damage, neither party could provide a conclusive investigation.
- The adjudicator noted that, whilst this was disappointing, the dealership could not be held liable for this.
- At the time of the claim, the vehicle was outside of the manufacturer’s warranty period, and the extended warranty which was sold alongside the vehicle. The claim therefore could not be considered under either of these warranties.
- Without technical evidence demonstrating the cause of the fire was due to an inherent fault with the vehicle, the adjudicator did not find that the business had breached the Vehicle Sales Code.
- The evidence therefore did not demonstrate a breach of the sales contract, meaning the consumer’s complaint could not be upheld.
Conclusion:
- Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
