The consumer’s issue:

A consumer purchased a brand-new hybrid SUV from a dealership, after being told that the car had a towing capacity of up to 2,100kg – a figure also shown on the vehicle manufacturer’s website.

However, shortly after taking ownership, the customer subsequently found out that the maximum was only 1,500kg, which meant that their caravan could potentially exceed this, and leave them uninsured.

When the vehicle manufacturer was approached about the difference in towing capacity, they explained that their website offered advisory information and was subject to change.

As the consumer deemed this to be misleading, they were looking to hand back their SUV and be provided with a replacement car that had a 2,100kg towing capacity, or be awarded a price reduction for their existing vehicle.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the documentation provided by both parties, and highlighted that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the dealership had breached the Vehicle Sales Code due to the SUV being mis-advertised prior to the point of sale. In this case, the consumer’s sales contract was with the dealership, not the manufacturer.

The adjudicator noted the original advert provided by the consumer, which highlighted the capacity of 2,100kg, as well as correspondence between themselves and the retailer and the manufacturer confirming incorrect information was advertised, and which was later amended. An audio call between the consumer and the retailer also saw further discussions about the mis-advertised vehicle.

Based on the course of events, the adjudicator determined that the retailer had failed in their obligation to supply the consumer with the correct information to allow them to buy a car that met their needs. As a result, the dispute was upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer accepted the adjudicator’s decision and opted for a price reduction. However, the dealership disagreed with this outcome, as they believed that the incorrect information had come from the manufacturer at the time of sale, meaning they were not liable for this.

As one party disagreed, the case was passed to an ombudsman for a final decision. They reviewed the evidence once again and the findings of the adjudicator, and noted that the advert showed a towing capacity of 2,100kg, and that the retailer was aware that the consumer wished to use a caravan, as they had also added the paid option of having a towbar fitted.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman equally noted an e-mail from the manufacturer showing the information on the website had been updated, and that the consumer distinctly referenced a conversation with the dealership, which suggested incorrect information about the towing capacity was provided by both them, and not just the manufacturer at the point of sale.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts provided, the complaint was also upheld in the consumer’s favour by the ombudsman, and awarded them their preferred award of a price reduction.

Key learning point:

It is essential that any information given to a consumer by both a vehicle manufacturer and retailer is accurate at the point of sale to allow a fully informed and transparent purchase decision.