The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 14-plate hatchback from a dealership in July 2018, and in June 2019, with just 25,000 miles on the clock, the car developed a serious fault. I took it for an inspection by a third party and discovered that the engine had dropped on one side, and that two bolts for securing the engine mount were bent.
The third party discovered that a replacement engine mount had been fitted to the car at 21,594 miles, and I had purchased the vehicle at 21,999 miles. Because of this, the third party suspected that the bolts were left loose during the replacement.
The total cost of repair was a frightening sum of £6,304, but the manufacturer covered 75% of the bill under goodwill, because the faulty repairs had been conducted under warranty for the previous owner.
I understand that I do not have a claim against the manufacturer or the offending garage, because they repaired the car for the previous owner and not for me. But I know that my seller is responsible for the quality of the car they sell me. I therefore approached the selling dealership and asked them to compensate me for the remaining 25% (£1,576) of the bill.
However, the seller declined to pay for the repair because they believe that the manufacturer’s willingness to cover the 75% repair costs demonstrates the issue is not caused by poor workmanship, but rather is caused by a “known concern” which the manufacturer is responsible for.
As a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the selling dealership to provide a full refund of £1,576 so that I am not left out of pocket.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We are sincerely sorry that it has been necessary for the car to undergo significant repairs as a result of a mechanical failure.
- Whilst it is clear that the failure of the engine mount was the root cause of the problem, the third party has been unable to provide supporting evidence to demonstrate that this issue was caused by poor workmanship in a previous repair.
- Additionally, for the manufacturer to contribute 75% of the costs, for a car which is two years outside of the manufacturer’s warranty, demonstrates that this fault is not caused by poor workmanship.
- This is because, if the problem was caused by poor repairs, then the manufacturer would, without doubt, have refused to take any responsibility for the costs. The contribution of 75% demonstrates this is a known concern for which the manufacturer is responsible.
- Whilst it is unfortunate that the consumer has had to contribute to the repair costs, we are unfortunately unable to assist further.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence and found that there was a breach of the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales.
- This was because the business was responsible for ensuring they sold a car that was of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. The engine mount failing just under a year after purchase, either caused by poor workmanship or a known concern, showed that the accredited business sold a car that did not meet those standards. In addition, whether it was due to a faulty repair or an inherent defect, it demonstrated that the hatchback was faulty at the point of sale.
- The adjudicator reminded the business that the manufacturer has no obligation towards the vehicle once the warranty has elapsed, and a warranty is over and above consumer rights, not instead of them. As such, the responsibility for rectifying the vehicle fell to the selling dealership.
- Therefore, the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the adjudicator directed the seller to pay the consumer the remaining 25% (£1,576) of repair costs.
Conclusion:
- Both parties agreed with the adjudication outcome, and the business agreed to pay the consumer £1,576 as recommended by the adjudicator, thereby closing the case.
