The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand-new coupé from a dealership in November 2018. After around eight months and 1,800 miles, the diesel particulate filter (DPF) warning light came on. The advice from the manufacturer was to drive to a rural area from my home in the city to try and rectify the fault, but it unfortunately remained.
After being told to keep trying to clear the issue, which is a known problem, it still didn’t go away, and the manufacturer agreed to rectify the warning light, which was a temporary fix rather than a permanent one. Their next piece of advice was for me to then do more miles, which I also thought was unacceptable.
The car is not fit for city living, and this was never pointed out to me at the time of sale. The addition of this new filter (it was not in my previous cars) had caused an issue that the manufacturer failed to resolve. If I had known about this potential fault, I would never have bought the vehicle in the first place. To resolve my complaint, I am looking for the problem to be fixed, but if this cannot happen, I would like to reject the car in return for a full refund of £40,000.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The customer stated that they had driven 1,800 miles in a six-month period, which is unusually low mileage.
- It is also clear from the accompanying documentation provided from the manufacturer by the customer, that the issue is a ‘characteristic’ of the vehicle, and that no fix was available.
- As the manufacturer alluded to the fact that the issue is caused by the driving style of the customer, rather than a fault being present, we are unable to facilitate a rejection and refund.
- Our understanding is that, if the customer had bought a different vehicle from a different brand at this price point, the likelihood is that vehicle would also have had a particulate filter fitted as standard.
- In order for the part to function correctly, the vehicle is required to go on longer, higher speed drives, such as on a motorway, for the filter to clear naturally. As it appears the customer lives in the city, this sort of driving may not be possible.
- As we believe we have not done anything wrong, we are unable to assist with the customer’s request. We believe the best course of action would be for the consumer to contact their finance company regarding the rejection of the vehicle.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator said that the burden of proof was on the consumer to show that there was a fault with the vehicle.
- The consumer said within their complaint that the DPF issue had been acknowledged as a known fault by the business. On the other hand, they disputed that the problem was a characteristic of the vehicle based on driver behaviour.
- In addition, the customer was not informed about this problem at the point of sale, and made it clear to the business that the vehicle would be used for low mileage, meaning that the onus was on the business to have advised the consumer on the characteristic of the vehicle.
- Nevertheless, the business would not be expected to guess or assume how the consumer planned to use the car, so it could not be said that, without further evidence to the contrary, that the vehicle was not fit for a purpose made known to the business.
- As there was no further evidence of a technical nature at this point to support the position that there was a fault with the vehicle, the adjudicator concluded that the Vehicle Sales Code had not been breached, and could therefore not uphold the consumer’s complaint.
Conclusion:
- The business accepted the adjudicator’s decision, and the consumer did not respond within the required timeframe. Therefore, the case was closed.
