The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a used 65-plate saloon for around £16,000 in January 2022, and took out an extended warranty at the same time. In February 2023, they encountered a problem with the car’s rear differential, and contacted the warranty provider to get the issue fixed under the terms of the policy.
The customer obtained a quote from a main dealership who could complete the repairs straight away, but the warranty company declined this. Instead, as a more economical route, the business preferred a third-party company which provided ‘used’ parts. Upon informing the customer, they raised a complaint as they said that these types of components were not stated in the policy, which covered reconditioned, new or service exchange parts only.
The warranty provider subsequently reviewed their position and agreed to source a reconditioned part, which was fitted to the consumer’s car two months after the claim was originally submitted by the vehicle owner. As the consumer believed that the warranty provider failed to uphold the terms of the policy, they were seeking compensation of £100 a day for the period whilst they were waiting for their car to be fixed. In light of what had happened, the consumer was however, offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill.
The case outcome:
Upon review of the warranty terms, it was deemed the customer was correct in that the policy stated that the business will use reconditioned parts, new or service exchange components when completing repairs. Therefore, by the business obtaining a ‘used’ part, this meant that it was acting outside of the scope of the agreement.
The warranty provider tried to rely on sections within the warranty terms that gave them discretion when reviewing claims, and allowed them to complete claims on an economic basis. Whilst this may be the case, the business cannot use ‘discretion’ as a way to extend or insert terms into a warranty that are not specifically stated. The part of the warranty that allowed a business to complete an economic repair also did not mention the business acquiring ‘used’ parts to do so.
In terms of the compensation the consumer was seeking, The Motor Ombudsman does not make any awards for this, nor were there any provisions in the policy to suggest the consumer was entitled to it, even if the warranty provider was not able source a replacement part within a reasonable timeframe.
In summary, the complaint was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the business was directed to award the sum of £250 previously offered to the consumer. The consumer rejected this conclusion upon receiving the ombudsman’s final decision, and was free to pursue their dispute via a court of law at their own cost.
