The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new high performance hatchback from a franchise car dealership in May 2017, and in August 2021, when the car was 4,300 miles outside of the warranty period, the infotainment system, the “brain” of the car, stopped working. This left me without a functioning phone, reversing camera or satellite navigation system. This failure also happened six months after the vehicle’s battery was replaced, due to lack of use during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
The dealer diagnosed the fault as being a failure of the information electronics unit, and they explained that that it should have lasted for the lifetime of the vehicle, and that other models from the brand had also suffered from the same issue. I requested that the business solved the problem, and they responded with a goodwill offer to cover 50% of the cost of replacing the unit, leaving me with £1,155 to pay. The vehicle manufacturer also declined to help cover a proportion of the outstanding bill.
I needed a functioning car again, so I agreed to pay my half on the basis that I would be pursuing the business to subsequently recover the money that I had paid, and signed the invoice as “paid under protest”, as recommended by Citizens Advice.
As the catastrophic failure occurred after four years for a “life of the car” item, I want the full cost of the replacement unit to be paid by the business, and to have my 50% share refunded in order to resolve my dispute.”
The accredited business’ response:
- When the customer reported a problem with the infotainment system, our dealership agreed a free-of-charge one-hour diagnostics investigation.
- They found the control unit for the media system required replacing, and asked the manufacturer if they could help with the cost, but they declined to offer any assistance.
- After the dealership had reviewed the vehicle service history and, taking into account the free diagnosis, a gesture of goodwill to fund 50% of the cost of replacement of the unit was offered to the customer.
- Although not they were not happy with this arrangement, they accepted the offer, and the work was carried out.
- Our dealership denies it told the customer that all vehicle components “should” last the lifetime of the vehicle, but like anything electrical or mechanical, parts can fail, meaning repairs are sometimes needed sooner than a customer would expect.
- Whilst we are sorry to learn the customer was dissatisfied having to a pay half of the cost of the repairs, we will not be offering any further assistance. This is because, there was no evidence to support the customer’s suggestion the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale in May 2017 or had a latent defect.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that, the customer reported the issue with the vehicle’s infotainment system more than six months after buying the car. Therefore, they had the evidential burden of showing the failure was the result of a latent shortcoming or a defect which was present at the point of sale.
- The customer pointed out that the component should have lasted for the lifespan of the vehicle, and that the failure occurred four years post-sale, thereby suggesting that there was a latent defect or engineering shortcoming present in the unit from the time of its manufacture.
- The adjudicator noted to the contrary, that the business said that components can fail and require replacement.
- From the documentation presented, the adjudicator explained that, whilst the car had only covered around 20,000 miles at the time of the failure of the information electronics unit, there was no evidence to suggest that the issue occurred due to a latent defect at the point of sale, rather than being a fault which developed since the customer bought the vehicle in May 2017.
- As such, the adjudicator explained he was unable to suggest the selling dealership was obligated to refund the contribution the consumer made to the cost of replacing the defective unit.
Conclusion
- Neither the consumer nor the dealership objected to the adjudicator’s findings, and the case was closed.
