The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a used ’12-registration car from a dealership in November 2018, and was told that it was in great condition and nothing needed to be changed or fixed.
However, in May 2019, the car would not brake properly, and I managed to stop the vehicle using the gears and handbrake. After that, I tried the brakes and they worked again, but the following day, I took the vehicle to a local garage to have them tested, and they told me that the brake discs and pads were completely worn out, a coil spring needed changing and three of the tyres were also illegal due to the amount of wear. I had only driven around 2,000 miles since buying the car less than six months before, so I was rather shocked to hear this and had to pay £665 for the repairs.
I am therefore looking to be refunded in full for this cost, but the dealer said they would not cover this, because I didn’t give them notice before the repairs were carried out at the third party garage and did not have an extended warranty.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We sold the car to this customer in November 2018 for around £3,500, and it had more than 43,000 miles on the clock. The car was prepped, as shown by job cards provided.
- We had not seen the car since it was purchased, and it was only in May 2019 that the customer complained to us that they had never been told parts would require changing.
- We were also not given the opportunity to assess the damage or whether repairs could be done at a reduced cost as a goodwill gesture.
- The coil spring, brake pads, discs and tyres are all items that we would consider to be subject to wear and tear.
- Given this information, we are unable to accept the request for the reimbursement of the £665 paid by the consumer.
The adjudication outcome:
- The dealership was required to ensure any communications about the vehicle were not misleading or were likely to be misunderstood. They were also required not to withhold information about a vehicle’s history or usage that may affect the buyer’s decision to purchase the car.
- No evidence was provided to The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator demonstrating that the customer was told that nothing would need to be repaired on the car.
- The Used Vehicle Pre-Sale Inspection Report showed that the tread of the tyres was within the legal limit at the time of sale and there was no evidence that any of the other items later requiring repair were faulty at that time.
- It was therefore concluded that he business did not withhold information, was misleading, or that they had failed to provide information about the car that may have affected the customer’s decision to buy it.
- The garage was also required to ensure the vehicle was of satisfactory quality. Evidence was provided to show that the brake discs and pads, coil spring and three tyres were worn. But the evidence from the point of sale demonstrated that the tread on all of the tyres were within the legal limit. No information to the contrary was supplied by the customer.
- All of the faults reported by the consumer were wear and tear related, and the evidence showed that they had worn since the time of sale.
- In addition, no evidence was provided to show that there was a fault with the car when it was purchased and that had caused this to occur. The business was equally not given any opportunity to assess whether there was a fault with the vehicle.
- It was also noted that, even if an inherent fault was found, the car was six years old when it was purchased, it had covered 43,000 miles and was bought for a relatively low price of approximately £3,500.
- Therefore, these factors were taken account when considering what would have been meant when the car was described as in good condition.
- It was concluded that car would still have been deemed to be of satisfactory quality even if there was some wear and tear.
- Based on the above, the consumer’s complaint was not upheld and no award was made.
Conclusion:
- Neither party contested the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
