The consumer’s issue:
“I went to the business to buy an SUV, and I looked at a 1.4-litre turbo variant. At the time, the sales representative said that he had another one off-site that was also in the same price bracket, and showed me a picture. I therefore bought it thinking it also had the 1.4-litre engine, but it was only when I took the car back to the garage with an issue that they told me that the lack of power was due to the vehicle having a 1.6-litre unit. As a result, I told them that I wished to reject the car as I had part-exchanged a better one in comparison, and to be provided a 1.4-litre model that I thought I was buying originally.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We do not have a written record of a complaint from the customer, but we have a number of documents signed by them, which clearly states the vehicle was a 1.6-litre model.
- We are aware that the customer came into our service department regarding lights on the dashboard, and the vehicle feeling sluggish, but no fault was found.
- That same day, the customer applied for credit on a more expensive car which was a 1.4-litre automatic. However, the finance company declined the application, and we have not heard or seen the consumer for over 12 months since then.
The adjudication outcome:
- The consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault which was present at the point of sale.
- They also claimed that the vehicle they had bought did not match the description of the one that they believed they were being sold. The engine was a 1.6-litre as opposed to what they thought they were receiving – a 1.4-litre turbo.
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator however, concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate that, at the point of sale, the vehicle suffered from an inherent fault. The customer had also failed to provide any evidence that showed the vehicle they had bought was not as described.
- The photograph and attached information of the vehicle clearly showed the engine size was a 1,598cc petrol, and the customer signed the order form, which suggests they had the opportunity to examine the vehicle and was satisfied with the model they had bought.
- As there was no evidence of a fault or misrepresentation at the time of sale, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
- The consumer did not respond to the adjudication outcome, and the case was closed.
