The consumer’s issue:
“I bought a brand new van, and after nine months, I returned the vehicle to the seller due to a loud knocking noise which could always be heard. The van went back to the business on a number of occasions until I eventually decided that I wanted a replacement vehicle because I was concerned about safety.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We have replaced two sets of shock absorbers on the customer’s van in January 2017 at 11,691 miles and in April 2017 at 15,016 miles. The fault disappeared, but then returned, and therefore we contacted the vehicle manufacturer for some technical assistance.
- I have the correspondence from the vehicle manufacturer showing that we attempted to resolve the customer’s problem, but without success.
- We informed the customer that we are unable to do anymore until the manufacturer lets us know what the best course of action is to resolve the issue.
- The manufacturer therefore told us to return the vehicle to the customer until a solution could be found, and we are still waiting for this.
The adjudication outcome:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that the business did not contest the noise, nor did they disagree that the noise was acceptable for that vehicle.
- From reading what had been replaced on the vehicle, the business had taken reasonable measures to attempt to repair the van, but the rectification remains outstanding.
- The legal implication of this, is that the consumer had expressed on the 28 February 2017 a statement, which could be understood by a reasonable person as dissatisfaction with the goods, and implies that the consumer was exercising their legal rights.
- Further to this email, the vehicle was in for repair of the replacement shock absorbers. With regards to the law, this means that the business has exercised their right to repair the vehicle.
Conclusion:
- The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator concluded that whilst the law would not warrant a replacement vehicle, the timeline would entitle the customer to some form of remedy.
- The adjudicator asked the business to either consider rejection of the vehicle subject to a reasonable deduction for usage, or to consider a replacement vehicle if this was more amenable.
- The parties agreed on the provision of a replacement vehicle.
