The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a second-hand 57-plate SUV from a dealership in December 2021. After the purchase, and on driving the vehicle back home, I noticed that the car was suffering from a shaking/vibration noise. I phoned the dealership to let them know about the issue, but they explained the vehicle was sold with a 12-month extended warranty, and that I should wait for the paperwork to come through and then raise a claim.
The warranty provider authorised the claim, and the car was taken to a third-party garage for an inspection. They kept my vehicle for a period of five weeks, and I was given a courtesy car throughout. However, when I received my own car back, it did not feel like the issue had been resolved. I then took it to my own garage for an inspection, and they quoted £4,096.26 to replace the transfer assembly, shock absorbers and other parts.
I complained to the selling dealership, but they thought the quote from my garage was excessive and asked for a second quote using second hand parts, rather than brand-new components. I took the car back to my own independent garage and received a second quote for £995.15 for the repairs using second hand parts.
The selling dealership reviewed the quote, but decided that, as the repair was initially covered under the extended warranty, any issues with the quality of the repair needed to be raised directly with the warranty provider and not with them. I do not think this is correct, as they sold me the car which was not of satisfactory quality.
I then had to get the vehicle serviced in June 2022, and took the car back to my own independent garage to have this completed. They found that the clutch needed replacing, which I understand is a wear and tear part, but they also found that the vehicle’s subframe was heavily corroded and needed to be replaced. The selling dealership said that my SUV underwent an MOT before the sale, which did not note any issues with corrosion. However, I have obtained the previous year’s MOT, which noted that the sub-frame suffered from significant corrosion.
To resolve my complaint, I would like the selling dealership to fully fix all the outstanding issues with the car at no cost to myself.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer purchased the vehicle in December 2021. Prior to the sale of the vehicle, the car had an MOT and service.
- The customer visited our premises and conducted a test drive of the vehicle before purchase. They were happy with the car and proceeded with the sale.
- A couple of days after the purchase, the consumer then complained that the car was shaking and throwing him around the road. We advised the customer to bring the car back to us and we agreed to provide a courtesy vehicle.
- We inspected the vehicle and found that it needed a repair. We therefore instructed the warranty provider to investigate and repair the SUV.
- When the repair work was completed, we noticed considerable damage to the courtesy car. The customer disputed this and stated the vehicle was like this when he collected it.
- Once the car was repaired by the warranty provider, the customer collected his vehicle and was happy with it. After a few days, the customer contacted us again to complain that the vehicle was still suffering with the shaking/vibration issue.
- We advised the customer that the car would need to go back to the warranty provider as they conducted the repairs.
- The customer repeatedly refused to return the car and complained about our service.
The adjudication outcome:
- Under the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, the business had an obligation to ensure that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described at the point of sale.
- The first issue The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator addressed was the extended warranty that was sold alongside the vehicle. The consumer stated within their submissions that they were unaware that the original repairs were being conducted by the warranty provider and not the selling dealership.
- The adjudicator however did not find that there was any misleading communication at the time the consumer made the claim, and therefore could not uphold this aspect of the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
- It was also noted that, as the repair was conducted by the extended warranty provider, the adjudicator could not comment on the quality of the repair work or the actions of the warranty provider.
- There was also a dispute between the consumer and the business regarding the courtesy vehicle provided to the consumer, and whether any damage was caused.
- The adjudicator explained that, under the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, the business does not have an obligation to provide a courtesy vehicle, nor is there any legal obligation to do so. It is considered good customer service to provide a courtesy car if available, but this falls outside the remit of this service. Therefore, the adjudicator was unable to comment on whether the consumer was liable for any damage caused to the courtesy vehicle.
- It was noted that at the time of the complaint, the vehicle was 14 years old and had covered 120,000 miles.
- We would consider that a vehicle of this type would be expected to last approximately 100,000 miles, and therefore anything above this would be considered to have reached the end of its approximate life expectancy.
- The adjudicator stated that the vehicle was sold for £3,500 and market research conducted found this was a fair and reasonable price, considering similar vehicle sales.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator did however find that the business had breached the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, as the business had failed to inform the consumer of any information that could affect their purchase decision. In this case, the business stated that the vehicle had an MOT in December 2021, which did not highlight any issues with the vehicle.
- The consumer however, provided a copy of the previous year’s MOT, which identified the vehicle’s suspension and sub-frame was suffering from corrosion. The adjudicator made both parties aware that, whilst The Motor Ombudsman could not comment on the outcome of an MOT, the vehicle must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose at the point of sale.
- As the vehicle was sold with a significantly corroded sub-frame, the adjudicator concluded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when purchased by the customer. In fact, the business should have made the consumer aware of the condition of the sub-frame, and the adjudicator therefore partially upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour.
- To put things right, the adjudicator recommended the business should award a 10% price reduction (£350) in full and final settlement of the complaint.
Conclusion
- Both parties accepted the adjudicator’s decision and the case was closed.
