The consumer’s issue:
“In August 2020, I purchased a used 17-plate SUV from a dealership, which was advertised as having 11,605 miles on the clock. However, once I had collected the car and returned home, I noticed that the mileage recorded on the odometer was in fact 12,066 miles.
I made a complaint to the dealership about this, as they had misled me regarding the car’s mileage on the advertisement and the sales paperwork. The business accepted that there was a difference compared to what had been advertised.
In response to this, they offered me three years’ free servicing, but I had asked them to include the cost of the parts that would be used in these services also, but they refused. To bring my complaint to a close, I am looking for the goodwill offered by the dealership to be increased.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We can confirm that the consumer purchased the vehicle on 3rd August 2020, and a week later, they contacted us about a discrepancy that they had noticed with regards to the advertised mileage versus that when they took receipt of the car, i.e. the difference was noted as being 461 miles.
- A member of staff from our customer services team had been in contact with the consumer and were aware of the issue. We did not dispute that this advertisement was misleading, and we had offered rejection of the vehicle or to supply them with a three-year service plan free of charge as a goodwill gesture.
- The consumer was not happy with our offer of the service plan and did not want to reject the vehicle. We had taken some time to review the offer made and we feel that it was sufficient in the circumstances.
- We would also like to point out that the difference in the mileage of 461 miles would equate to a difference of around £75 in the purchase price.
- We are happy that the offers previously made to the customer are more than fair, and therefore deem that any additional goodwill measures are not necessary.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator said that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that the dealership had misled them regarding the mileage that was advertised on the vehicle at the point of sale.
- The customer said within their evidence that the business had accepted that they had misled them regarding the mileage that was recorded on the vehicle at the point of sale. The dealership had not disputed this element of the complaint, and so, without any further evidence to the contrary, the adjudicator upheld that there had been a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.
- The adjudicator then reviewed the proportionate award that would be applicable in this case. They noted that the consumer had not provided any documentation to support a direct consequential loss suffered by the consumer due to the breach of the Code of Practice.
- Therefore, the dispute that arose between the parties was regarding what the appropriate goodwill gesture that the dealership should make. The adjudicator explained that goodwill gestures are made at the discretion of a business, and that The Motor Ombudsman had no legal authority to compel dealerships to increase or vary them.
- Consequently, the adjudicator recommended that the consumer accept the goodwill offer of the three-year service plan as initially offered by the dealership, as they were not legally obliged to provide this.
- As an alternative, the adjudicator suggested that the goodwill offer could be increased by the business itself from £75 to £125 to reflect the inconvenience and stress that the consumer had suffered due to the breach of the Vehicle Sales Code that had been identified.
Conclusion:
- The dealership accepted the adjudicator’s decision, but the consumer did not provide any further response, and the case was closed.
