The consumer’s issue:
“I took delivery of a brand-new saloon in May 2017. A few months later, in November, I started to notice that the windscreen was steaming up quite a bit. I complained to the dealer that sold me the car, and they asked me to bring it to them for inspection, which I did in December. However, they couldn’t find a problem with it, so I collected it and took it away.
By February 2018, the inside of my windscreen was icing up. I called the dealer for a second time, and they inspected the car for me, but they still were unable to find a fault. This pattern repeated itself during the next winter, and by late January 2019, I had ice on the inside of my windscreen again. I knew this wasn’t normal, but the dealer looked at the car and said the same thing – they couldn’t find anything wrong with it and I should take it away.
I decided to complain to the head office because I was getting nowhere with the dealer. They arranged for an inspection at a different garage, but it just ended up with the same result – no fault found.
I’ve got numerous photographs and videos of the ice, so I’m adamant that something is wrong with the car. I want the dealer to get to the bottom of the problem with my vehicle, fix it and provide compensation for the stress and hassle I’ve faced trying to get this issue resolved.”
The accredited business’ response:
- We inspected the customer’s vehicle in December 2017, February 2018 and February 2019.
- We have supplied job cards and invoices to show that we have been unable to find a fault or replicate the issue on any of these visits.
- We also arranged an inspection at another garage, and they also could not locate a problem.
- From the timeline, it appears the issue is triggered by cold weather, which could be due to the windows not being closed properly or the airflow in the vehicle, but nothing has been detected to support a fault or to find the root cause.
- Whilst we are sympathetic to the consumer’s position, we are unable to offer any further explanation or resolution.
- However, we are happy to reinspect the car, and if a fault is found, we would consider applying goodwill to any repair costs.
The adjudication outcome:
- Whilst the adjudicator accepted that the consumer had provided evidence showing condensation and ice building up on the inside of their windscreen, two dealerships had been unable to find a fault, and the customer had not provided any technical evidence to counter that position.
- As the adjudicator could not conclude that the car was faulty, they had to consider it to be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.
- The adjudicator recommended that the consumer obtain further technical evidence if they wished to pursue the case. Otherwise, they could find no breach of the Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales and could not uphold the case in their favour.
- The consumer disagreed with the outcome, stating that they had provided proof of the problem and that they felt the business’ suggestion that the ice was being caused by the windows being open was insulting. They asked for an ombudsman to review the complaint.
The ombudsman’s final decision:
- The ombudsman reached the same outcome as the adjudicator for similar reasons.
- She recognised the consumer’s frustration, and the volume of photographic and video evidence submitted showing ice and moisture in the vehicle.
- However, two separate dealers had inspected the car and found no fault with it.
- The ombudsman also acknowledged that the problem only seemed to happen in the colder months, meaning there was no evidence of ongoing water ingress or leaks during rainfall.
- On balance, the ombudsman found the most likely explanation of what was happening was that water was getting in the car – possibly from boots, shoes or clothing – and, due the cold temperatures, was not evaporating in the same way it would during warmer months. Instead, it was freezing or creating condensation.
- For this reason, the ombudsman was unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour or make an award.
Conclusion:
- The consumer did not respond to the ombudsman’s decision and the case was closed.
