The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a used 11-plate hatchback with around 54,000 miles on the clock from a dealership in December 2021. The car was MOT’d two days before collection, and passed with no advisories. In March 2022, I noticed the vehicle was quite noisy when going over speed bumps – an issue which got progressively worse. I therefore got in touch with the dealership to find out if this was something that would be covered under the warranty that came with the car. I was told that it would be, and I booked the car in to be looked at.
The inspection by the business revealed a fault to the front suspension, and that both wishbone arms, the ball joint pinch bolts, and the anti-roll bar link arms would need to be replaced. At this point, I was informed that these parts had worn due to wear and tear, meaning I was liable for the cost. I agreed to have the work done, but I was very surprised that all these problems happened within the first three months of ownership. I queried this with a mechanic and a vehicle technician who both advised me to go back to the dealership, as they did not believe this degree of wear could have taken place in such a short space of time. They also said the MOT should have picked up any issues.
The dealership offered to pay me back 50% of the costs (totalling around £200) as a goodwill gesture, but I feel that they passed a car that should have failed. Therefore, as a resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the full cost of repair to be reimbursed, and for the business to cover the costs of a new MOT by an independent garage in the interests of safety.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We sold the vehicle to the consumer in good faith.
- As can been seen from the service references, which included an MOT prior to collection, there were no advisories regarding the areas in question prior to the sale of the car to the consumer.
- The noise referred to was not there when the consumer test drove the vehicle, or during the early months of ownership.
- It is understandable the consumer was disappointed to have to replace these parts so soon after purchase, and with that in mind, we offered a 50% contribution towards the cost of repair as a goodwill gesture.
- We believe this to be a fair resolution to the consumer’s complaint.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both sides, which mainly consisted of an account of events, written correspondence, pre-sales, sales and handover documents, the MOT history and an appeal against the pre-collection MOT carried out, as well as job cards and invoices.
- The adjudicator highlighted that, as the faults, and subsequent repairs, occurred within the first six months from the point of sale, the business had the obligation of demonstrating the faults were not inherent from the time of purchase.
- After considering the facts of the case, the adjudicator deemed such a fault to the vehicle’s suspension in the three months from the point of handover, to be already present from the point of sale.
- The adjudicator highlighted that with the vehicle being 10 years of age at the time of sale, it was considered that it would have been highly unlikely that such a faultless suspension would have developed such a serious problem within the first three months of ownership, especially having not even been noted as a minor advisory on the pre-collection MOT or any of the pre-sales preparation carried out.
- The adjudicator therefore determined that, on the balance of probabilities, the vehicle did not meet the standard a reasonable person would deem of satisfactory quality from the point of sale. With the fault also requiring major repairs to the suspension, which had left the vehicle in a possibly dangerous condition, it was also determined that the car was not fit for purpose at the point of purchase.
- As a result, the adjudicator found there to be a breach by the business of the Vehicle Sales Code, and made the decision to uphold the case in the consumer’s favour.
- The adjudicator awarded the consumer a full reimbursement of the cost of repairs to the suspension, along with a written apology from the business. However, any further remedy regarding the MOT was not able to be awarded, as this is governed by the DVSA. The consumer was directed to the DVSA if they were to choose to pursue this element of the complaint.
Conclusion
- The adjudication outcome was accepted by both parties, and the case was then closed.
