Turbo failure claim

The consumer’s issue:

I purchased a two-year-old used 65-plate hybrid vehicle in April 2017. In October 2019, when the car was only four and half years old and had covered just 47,382 miles, I took the car into my local dealership, as I was experiencing slow acceleration and a feeling of a loss of power. I was assured the vehicle was safe to drive, despite these problems, so I took it away again.

However, only a few hours later, the car broke down with a catastrophic turbo failure. The dealership told me they didn’t think the turbo should have failed so soon, and the car was only 59 days outside of its warranty. I was told the manufacturer would only cover 10% of the repair cost totalling £2,900. I complained, and they increased their goodwill contribution to 30%, but that still left me with a bill of £2,030 to fix a fault that shouldn’t have happened. The turbo clearly failed prematurely and wasn’t of satisfactory quality, and I am therefore looking for the manufacturer to reimburse me for this cost.”

The accredited business’ response:

  • The consumer had the car diagnosed by our approved dealership, and they concluded the turbo had failed.
  • The warranty on the car had also expired, and we were no longer liable for the cost of repairs at the time of the fault occurring.
  • We did, however, contribute 30% towards the cost of the repairs as a goodwill gesture.
  • If the consumer believes the car or the turbo wasn’t of satisfactory quality, they need to raise a complaint with the dealership that supplied the car.

The adjudication outcome:

  • The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the manufacturer was only responsible for failures that occurred within the warranty period.
  • As there wasn’t a valid warranty in place, he said the manufacturer wasn’t obligated to cover the repair costs that the consumer was liable for.
  • The adjudicator therefore concluded that they were unable to find a breach of the Code of Practice for New Cars by the manufacturer.
  • The consumer disagreed, as the warranty had only just expired, and they didn’t think this position was fair. As a result, the customer asked for the case to be referred to an ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

  • The ombudsman also didn’t uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour for similar reasons as the adjudicator.
  • She said the crux of the complaint was about the quality of the turbo and she explained that the consumer couldn’t pursue a quality complaint against the manufacturer as there was no sales contract in place between the two parties. She said the rights offered to the vehicle owner under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 couldn’t be enforced against the manufacturer.
  • She explained the manufacturer’s obligations were limited to the terms and conditions of the warranty and they were only liable for repairs if the fault developed whilst it was valid.
  • In this case, the ombudsman said the manufacturer’s warranty had lapsed two months before the breakdown, and she had no remit under which she could ask the manufacturer to cover the cost of the repairs.
  • She went on to explain that any offers of goodwill were at the manufacturer’s sole discretion and not something that The Motor Ombudsman could influence.
  • The ombudsman informed the consumer that, as they had bought the car less than six years ago, they could raise a complaint against the dealership that sold them the vehicle under the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales.
  • She also noted the car had been in for diagnosis on the day of breakdown. Although there was limited information on this, she explained that the consumer may be able to raise a complaint against the dealership under the Code of Practice for Service and Repair.
  • Against the manufacturer, however, there was nothing further she could ask them to do as they had complied with the Code and provided a reasonable outcome for the consumer.

Conclusion:

  • As a final decision was made, and no response was received from the consumer, the case was closed.