The consumer’s issue:
“I purchased a brand-new high-performance luxury coupé in May 2017, and paid extra to have a leather interior. A few months later, the car was stolen, and in November 2017, my insurance company provided a like-for-like replacement car with leather of the same specification as my original vehicle.
In June 2021, having covered just 12,000 miles, I noticed that the leather on the driver’s seat bolster was cracking, and felt this was unacceptable for such little use. On closer inspection, I suspected the material used wasn’t leather, and a specialist confirmed that this was the case.
The manufacturer has insisted the interior is 100% leather, but the dealership has contradicted this by saying it is not. Between them, they have agreed to replace the faulty part, but not with leather, and I have asked for the amount I paid for the leather option to be reimbursed, as it is not all leather, and because the sales brochure was misleading by stating it was all leather. However, my request was refused.
An internet search showed that the Ombudsman had already investigated the manufacturer, and ruled that the description was misleading because the interior was not 100% leather and ordered redress. Subsequently, a spokesman from the manufacturer said they were looking to alter the wording in their brochures to ensure this was made clearer. The current brochure for my car now states that the seats are 80% leather, the remainder being man-made.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the money I spent on the leather option to be reimbursed (£795), along with the £60 inspection fee I paid to the leather specialist.”
The accredited business’ response:
- As the vehicle was purchased over four years ago in May 2017, we would be unable to substantiate any claims made in respect of the discussions which did or did not take place. They are based on verbal representation, which by its very nature is difficult to determine and verify.
- Furthermore, the consumer duly accepted delivery of the vehicle, and as the retailer of the vehicle, and as this is a ‘factory fit’ issue which the customer has raised, we would be bound by the guidance of the manufacturer’s literature and specification which would have been released at the time.
- We note that this issue was not highlighted until the customer moved into a replacement like-for-like vehicle.
- Factually, it does remain that the replacement vehicle was supplied by a third-party motor retailer, and whilst we are sorry that the customer has cause to complain, we remain of the opinion that this is a matter for the consumer to pursue with the manufacturer.
- In conclusion therefore, we do not accept any liability or see any justification for compensation in this respect. We consider this matter closed.
The adjudication outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator investigated the complaint. He concluded that:
- He was unable to confirm what was discussed with the consumer during the sales process. He could not therefore conclude that the consumer was misled.
- The sales brochure could be misleading.
- As the consumer no longer owned the car sold to him, the sales contract was voided. The business therefore had no legal obligations to the consumer.
- The consumer rejected the adjudicator’s findings and requested a final decision from an ombudsman.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reviewed the file and issued a provisional decision.
- He agreed with the adjudicator that the consumer had been misled by the brochure produced by the manufacturer. However, the retailer was responsible for the advertising. The consumer had not received the optional extra they had paid for.
- The ombudsman disagreed with the adjudicator on the point that the sales contract came to an end when the car was stolen. The consumer had paid for an optional extra they did not receive. The retailer was still liable for the misleading advertising which led to the consumer paying for the optional extra.
- The consumer also engaged an upholstery specialist to confirm that the seats were not 100% leather. These were the seats for the replacement car. This car was identical to the one sold by the accredited business. This proved the seats on the original car sold by the accredited business were not leather. The ombudsman deemed it to be a reasonable action for the consumer to take. He therefore made an award for the business to reimburse this fee of £60.
- The accredited business did not agree with the decision, as the law had not been applied correctly. They said the chain of causation had been broken when the car was stolen.
The ombudsman considered these further arguments. However, he was satisfied that:
- The brochure produced by the manufacturer advertised leather seats;
- The consumer had paid for leather seats;
- The seats were not leather, and the consumer was misled;
- The loss occurred when the consumer paid for the leather seats; and
- The chain of causation was not broken when the car was stolen. The consumer paid for an optional extra he did not receive.
- The ombudsman upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour and directed the business to pay the sum of £795 for the optional extra and the fee of £60 – a total award of £855.
