Through corrosion claim

The consumer’s issue:

“I bought a 13-plate city car in June 2014. In January 2020, I noticed corrosion on the inner panel of the car and, considering it was only a few years old, I didn’t expect to see this kind of rust on it.


I took it to my local dealership, and their inspection revealed “edge and fold” corrosion, which isn’t something covered under the 12-year anti-perforation warranty. I disagreed with this, so I had an engineer look at the vehicle. He concluded that the corrosion started on the inner panel, and was caused by there being no plastic inner arch liner fitted. This led to water and debris collecting around the pipe into the petrol tank, and the subsequent corrosion. I’m going to have to have the panel replaced and fit a plastic wheel arch liner to stop this happening again.


The manufacturer has said they’ll cover 75% of the repair costs, which total £3,328.64, but I think this should be paid in full. Clearly, the vehicle isn’t of the standard it should be, and I don’t think I should be liable for paying the remaining 25% of the costs (i.e. around £800).”

The accredited business’ response:

  • We do not agree that the corrosion is “through” or “inside out” corrosion as per the terms of the 12-year anti-corrosion warranty.
  • Instead, it is actually considered “edge and fold” corrosion, which is covered under the three-year paintwork warranty only.
  • As this has expired, we will not be looking to increase our goodwill contribution of 75% towards the full cost of the repairs, which we do not have a legal obligation to cover.

The adjudication outcome:

  • In this case, the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the cause of the corrosion was due to a manufacturing defect covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
  • The adjudicator noted that the three-year paint warranty which would have covered any manufacturing defects related to paint and bodywork had now expired. Therefore, even if the consumer could demonstrate that the rust was caused by a manufacturing defect, the adjudicator could no longer consider the complaint under the manufacturer’s warranty for paint.
  • The corrosion was classed as “edge and fold”, which was not covered under the 12-year paint warranty. The warranty’s terms and conditions only covered “through” corrosion.
  • As the corrosion was under the paint, but above the metal, causing the “bubbling” effect, it was not covered by the 12-year anti-corrosion warranty because the corrosion did not originate from the metal panel itself.
  • Therefore, the adjudicator did not have any grounds on which to uphold the consumer’s complaint, as there was no breach of the Code of Practice for New Cars, and the accredited business was not obliged to do anything further.
  • The adjudicator recommended that the business honoured their goodwill contribution and advised the customer to accept it.
  • The consumer was unhappy with the outcome, particularly because they felt that the quality of the vehicle was not satisfactory. They therefore asked for the case to be referred to an ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman remarked that the case information did not demonstrate that there was a valid claim under the vehicle’s 12-year body protection warranty.
  • The 12-year body protection warranty did not cover corrosion which was the result of external influence, such as stone chips, or other forms of damage. The manufacturer classed the issue as “edge and fold” corrosion.
  • The independent engineer’s report provided by the consumer showed that the corrosion started on the inner panel. However, this was not the same as “inside out” corrosion.
  • They explained that, instead, there was damage around the fuel filter, which had created small holes and blisters through the paintwork on the outer side of the vehicle. This is not perforation, which is corrosion caused by moisture that becomes trapped in the metal during the manufacturing process. Perforation starts from within the layers of the bodywork itself.
  • The consumer raised concerns over the lack of plastic inner arch lining on his car, and said that this was a problem which stemmed from manufacturing which should be covered. Essentially, the argument was about the quality of the car itself – i.e. that there was a design flaw which led to the rust.
  • The ombudsman explained that complaints about the quality of goods are better directed at the seller of the car, not the manufacturer. This is because the selling dealership is responsible, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, for providing goods that are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.
  • The ombudsman explained that claims about goods generally need to be made within six years of the purchase date. Therefore, they were not confident that the customer would be able to make a claim.
  • After reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint, and recommended that the consumer accepted the goodwill offer if it was still available to them. There was nothing further that the ombudsman could ask the accredited business to do for the consumer.

Conclusion:

  • The consumer was dissatisfied with the final decision, but as this was the last step in The Motor Ombudsman’s ADR process, the case was closed.