The consumer’s issue:
“On 7th September 2021, I bought a used 18-plate SUV from a dealership. A couple of weeks later, there was an oil leak, and the breakdown service came to my house to repair my vehicle and to fit a new part. On 16th October 2021, whilst I was on the road, the engine, power brakes and power steering then failed, and the car had to be rolled to a halt on the ramp of a motorway.
The vehicle was once again recovered to my house, and when the technician arrived, they said that the car needed a new engine, plus there were issues with the alternator, battery and crankshaft which should have been picked up at the last service. The vehicle was taken back to the dealership where I was advised over the phone it would need a brand-new engine. I was given the option of a full refund or to have the vehicle repaired.
Based on what had been a terrifying experience, I opted for the refund. The dealership also made deductions for the 2,000 miles I had driven since owning the car, and I also paid £500 to have a scuff on the bodywork repaired from another driver hitting me.
To resolve my complaint, I am looking to be repaid the sum I paid for the car (£52,000), including the road tax, gap insurance, and tyre and alloy wheel cover.”
The accredited business’ response:
- The consumer purchased the Approved Used car in September 2021, and it came with a complimentary warranty and roadside assistance.
- When the car came back to us in October 2021, the consumer was advised that the best course of action was to replace the engine under the warranty at no cost to them.
- The consumer was not comfortable with a new engine, and so they were offered a refund less deductions for wear and tear and the damage to the front end.
- After a couple of days, the consumer opted for the refund, and they received the remaining amount from the sale price after finance repayments had been taken into account, whilst the road tax was to be refunded by the DVLA, and the insurance policy costs by the respective providers.
The adjudication outcome:
- The adjudicator noted that both parties had acknowledged and accepted the vehicle sold to the consumer was not of satisfactory quality.
- He also agreed with the parties that a vehicle’s engine should not need to be replaced a month after purchase, and considering that the SUV had only completed around 37,000 miles by this point.
- As such, it was clear that the business had failed to meet their contractual obligations under the Consumer Rights Act and Vehicle Sales Code to provide a vehicle that was of satisfactory.
- The adjudicator commented that both offers proposed by the dealership were fair and reasonable, and were in accordance with what the consumer was entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act.
- As the consumer had owned the vehicle for more than 30 days, the business was entitled to make deductions for the usage of the vehicle.
- The adjudicator noted the 40p per mile metric used by the business, whilst on the higher end of the spectrum, was still a reasonable amount. The adjudicator would have made deductions at 37p per mile.
- As the business stated, the other costs the consumer wanted to be refunded were the responsibility of the DVLA or the insurance provider.
- Ultimately, the business had sold a defective vehicle and would remain accountable for this action as it should not have happened in the first place.
- Their response and deductions were fair and reasonable, meaning the consumer’s complaint was upheld, but no further award was issued.
Conclusion
- Both parties agreed with the findings, and the case was closed with no further actions required from either party.
