The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a five-year-old used city car from a dealership in July 2020 with around 37,000 miles on the clock, which included a free 12-month extended warranty. Shortly after I purchased the vehicle, it developed a fault and I could hear a noise. It turned out to be an issue with the bearings and wishbone, and the warranty would only cover the cost of the parts. A few weeks before the policy expired, another noise developed, which happened again after the warranty had lapsed – this time it came from the engine.
I therefore took the car to a dealership near to my work, and they diagnosed total engine failure and quoted £9,000 to replace it. I therefore spoke to the seller of the car, and they said the service manager would come back to me, but I’m still awaiting for a response two months later. I have been without a car since the first week of September 2020, and continue to make monthly payments of £230 on the vehicle. I also owe the dealership more than £800 for stripping the engine.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the dealership to contribute to the cost of repairing the engine.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer collected the vehicle on 27th July 2020, and we had no further contact with the customer until 26th April 2021.
- They requested that we investigated a rattle from the rear of the vehicle, which found that two rear anti-roll bar bushes and a right front wheel bearing were worn. These parts were replaced and paid for by the warranty and the customer.
- A few weeks later, the customer said that another noise had developed – this time it was coming from the engine, so they were advised to take the vehicle to a franchise dealership of the same brand as their car.
- As per their complaint, the customer did not take their car to any workshop at that point, and when they eventually did take their car in, the franchise dealer diagnosed complete engine failure.
- The dealership believed that continuing to drive the vehicle after it had developed a fault may have contributed to the situation worsening. The customer asked the dealership for financial assistance to help repair the engine, but the request was declined.
- The dates when the faults occurred as stated by the consumer are also believed to be incorrect e.g. the date of the engine issue arising is put as 26th August 2020, when the dealership believes it was July or August 2021, and the date of complaint to the dealership was put as 02nd September 2020, when it was in fact 02nd September 2021.
- Whilst we are sorry to learn the customer may be dissatisfied with the vehicle, we do not consider any redress from our business is appropriate in relation to this matter, and will not be able to contribute to the cost of repairing the engine.
- The customer’s complaint is not substantiated, as there is no evidence to support the customer’s suggestion the vehicle, and in particular the engine, was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale or had a latent defect.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator carefully reviewed the evidence in his possession, and noted the engine fault had arisen more than six months after the car’s sale to the consumer.
- This meant that the onus was on the consumer to show, on the balance of probabilities at least, that the failure of the car’s engine in August 2021 was an unavoidable consequence of an issue that was present on the car at the time of its supply over a year earlier.
- The adjudicator stated that they did not possess any evidence that would enable him to conclude this failure was due to any latent shortcoming that was present on the car at the time of sale in July 2020.
- Whilst the adjudicator was sympathetic to the customer’s situation due to the considerable cost of returning their car to the road, he stated that the evidence was insufficient for him to conclude that the selling dealership was obliged to accept responsibility for some or all of the consumer’s repair costs.
- Therefore, the case was not upheld in the customer’s favour, but the adjudicator did however explain he would be happy to reconsider this matter if the consumer chose to obtain further technical evidence in support of their position.
Conclusion
- The consumer and business both accepted the adjudicator’s findings without objection, and the case was closed.
