The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 16-plate diesel SUV from a dealership in June 2019 with nearly 36,000 miles on the clock. At the time that I bought the car, I noticed it had scratches, chips and dents, and the business agreed to respray the car at no cost to me, but this was not done. Also, on the first day of ownership, the pressure for the driver’s side tyre was also very low
In May 2020, I took the car for its service and MOT. I brought up the outstanding repairs, but nothing was fixed, and when I collected the vehicle, there was even more damage to the back bumper caused by an incident, which happened whilst the vehicle was being valeted.
Additionally, when I bought the car, I was told I had three years for the extended warranty, not two, as I later found out. Therefore, I asked the dealership to give me £500 so that I could get the car repainted with another garage, and to offer me compensation for the missing year’s warranty. However, they would not accept the car was damaged when I bought it or offer me compensation for either the damage they caused since my purchase, or the missing year for the extended warranty agreement.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The car was checked on 29th of April 2019 prior to the sale, and the preparation form shows we completed a thorough check, and none of the issues the customer claims were present at the point of sale were flagged. In addition, tyre depths, tread and pressures were all good.
- We have enclosed a job card for the MOT and service work carried out in May 2020, where we were also asked to investigate the rubber on inside of the door near to the bottom of the window area. This was over 10 months since purchase and the car had travelled a further 4,904 miles.
- The damage report on the bottom right of the job card clearly shows the existing damage to the car, which includes scratches to both doors and the bumper.
- When the consumer spoke to our sales manager, he tried to say we damaged his bumper, which we refuted, and offered as a gesture to the customer that we could get our smart repairer to fix the issue at cost. However, they refused this offer.
- The customer then asked us for £500 in compensation and to repair the vehicle at our cost, but we refused, as we did nothing wrong, and all we tried to do was to help them.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator reviewed the evidence and did not find that there was a breach of the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales. The adjudicator did not find that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.
- There was no documentation or evidence to suggest that an issue with the paintwork, chips, dents or any other damage was present or raised at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator noted the used car preparation form completed prior to the sale did not highlight any of the faults raised by the consumer and, had they been present, the consumer could have pointed them out before taking delivery of the vehicle.
- The job card and the vehicle damage report signed by the consumer in 2020 showed the car was brought in with dents, scratches and chips on both doors on the right-hand side and rear bumper.
- The adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the issues raised by the customer existed at the point of sale.
- On the subject of the warranty, the adjudicator was provided with the documents that the consumer would have seen when they chose to purchase the policy. These clearly highlighted the warranty’s expiration date and that it was a two-year warranty.
- The consumer accepted that they had read and signed these when buying the policy, so the adjudicator could not reasonably conclude that the warranty was mis-sold. Had the consumer been unhappy with the terms of the warranty, they either could have refused to go ahead with the purchase, or cancelled it within the cooling-off period.
- The complaint was therefore not upheld in the consumer’s favour and no further recommendations were made.
Conclusion:
- As the consumer did not respond to the decision, it was assumed they did not wish to take the complaint further. The business did respond, and they accepted the decision. The case was then closed.
