In July 2020, the consumer purchased a used ’66 plate SUV for around £20,000 from a franchise dealership. Around three and half years’ later, in January 2024, the vehicle broke down because of a failure of a known non-serviceable electrical component in the gearbox. As a result, they were unable to drive the vehicle.

The consumer raised a complaint with the manufacturer’s customer service department, and after five weeks of waiting for a response, the owner was informed that the manufacturer would not be able to cover the cost of replacing the mechatronic unit.

After waiting for around three months of not being able to use the SUV, the consumer proactively organised for the work to be carried out at an independent garage, and paid around £1,900 to get their car back on the road.
To resolve their dispute, the individual was looking to have this cost reimbursed by the dealer so that they were not left out of pocket.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that, as the defect was discovered more than six months after the purchase of the vehicle, the burden was on the consumer to prove that there was an inherent fault at the point of sale.

The adjudicator noted that the report from the independent garage showed that the mechatronic unit had suffered a failure, and the consideration here was whether this had occurred due to an existing issue, thereby rendering this component unsatisfactory.

The car had been serviced regularly, meaning the failure could not be attributed to anything the consumer had done, plus low mileage had been completed since they bought the car. The adjudicator therefore concluded that there must have been an underlying problem with the unit and, at seven years of age, and with only 34,000 miles on the clock, it was not reasonable to expect such a part to stop functioning at this point, thereby meaning the component and the vehicle were of unsatisfactory quality.

However, as the consumer had proceeded to have the repairs undertaken without giving the dealership the opportunity to address them in the first instance, and failed to reasonably mitigate their losses, the adjudicator explained that the consumer was therefore not entitled to be reimbursed for the full sum paid, and was awarded around £1,100 after deductions as a refund from the dealer.

Conclusion:

In summary, the consumer’s complaint was upheld in their favour with an award of a partial refund. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.

The post Mechatronic unit failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer bought a used crossover SUV, and took out an extended warranty policy after the manufacturer’s warranty had expired. Whilst driving on the motorway, the car suffered from a loss of power and broke down, and was towed to a local garage. They discovered a faulty turbocharger, and the consumer proceeded to contact the warranty company to make a claim on their policy to cover the cost of the repairs.

At this point, the consumer was told that a thorough assessment was needed to establish the root cause of the issue, but as they could not be without the vehicle as they used it to get to work, and the investigation by the warranty provider did not take place on the scheduled date, the consumer went ahead with the repairs.

However, the assessment subsequently took place, but the business rejected the consumer’s claim because the correct claims process had not been followed, and it believed the issue with the turbocharger was also pre-existing.

The consumer disputed this, citing a full service and MOT history, whilst the vehicle also underwent a health check before the policy started, at the warranty provider’s request. Furthermore, the agreement explicitly included coverage for wear and tear, which was the reason provided by the garage for the turbocharger failure.

The consumer therefore believed that they were eligible to be reimbursed for the replacement of the turbo, which cost in the region of £2,000.

The case outcome:

The ombudsman considered the evidence from both parties, and noted that the warranty policy set out the process that should be followed when a claim is made, as well as what the warranty did and did not cover.

Specifically, the ombudsman noted that the policy dictated that no repairs were to start until the business had given authorisation. In this case, the business was not initially convinced that the claim fell under the terms of their coverage. Therefore, it requested their own inspection to obtain further information.

However, by the time this took place, the engineer noted that their assessment was restricted due to the faulty turbocharger having already been removed and replaced.

Based on the course of events, the ombudsman stated in their decision that the claims process was clearly set out in the policy, and that it had not been followed by the consumer, and meant the warranty provider could not fully assess the issue against the terms of their policy.

Additionally, the ombudsman noted that, when the consumer first contacted the warranty provider about the faulty turbo, the business replied with an email outlining the claims process. This contained a section in bold marked as “IMPORTANT”, and clearly repeated the policy wording in that repairs could not begin without prior agreement from the warranty provider.

Conclusion:

After considering the facts of the case provided by both parties, the ombudsman noted that a warranty policy has two aspects. These are namely the claim process that is to be followed, and the coverage offered by the policy.

On this occasion, the ombudsman noted that the process had not been followed by the consumer, impacting the ability of the warranty provider to assess the validity of the claim.

As such, the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and stated that the business did not have any obligation to cover the cost of the repairs given the process had been made clear to the consumer on multiple occasions.

The post Turbocharger claim dispute appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer booked their compact SUV in for its six-year service and MOT via an online repair platform, and the description said that the price included replacement brake hoses.

However, just before the service was due to take place, the consumer was contacted and was advised that there had been an error and that these components would not be part of the package, and would cost an additional £200. As the customer refused to pay this on request, the booking was cancelled, with the platform citing their terms and conditions.

The customer subsequently complained on numerous occasions, as they believed that the business had acted fraudulently, and had formed a valid contract, which they then breached.
As a resolution to their dispute, the consumer was seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience that had been caused, and damages for the missed service to their vehicle.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and noted that, while they acknowledged that the price stated by the business was incorrect, and that the terms state that prices can be amended and bookings cancelled, there was not sufficient evidence to suggest that the terms were provided to the consumer at the time of booking.

The adjudicator also stated that it was reasonable for the consumer to expect that the business would honour the price of the package, inclusive of the brake hoses, at the time of booking, plus it was unreasonable to request the £200 just before the service was due to take place. Based on this, the adjudicator upheld the complaint in the consumer’s favour, and advised that the most appropriate remedy in this case was an apology for inconvenience caused, as there was no financial loss in this case due to the consumer not having yet made any kind of payment.

However, the business disagreed with this outcome and requested a final decision. The ombudsman advised that, to form a contract for service and repair work, four elements must be present, namely an offer, acceptance of that offer, consideration provided (usually money), and an intention of both parties to create legal relations.

In relation to the servicing and repair of a vehicle, the contract is usually formed when the consumer brings the vehicle to a repairer’s premises and leaves it there with a promise to pay afterwards, in exchange for the business completing the work.

In this case, no money was exchanged before the consumer brought the vehicle on site, and the booking was cancelled prior to them even starting to travel to the business’ premises. As such, no consideration was provided, and no contract had been formed. The ombudsman concluded that the business was therefore within their rights to cancel the consumer’s booking.

However, the ombudsman noted that the business had incorrectly applied their terms, which stated that it was entitled to cancel the contact where there was an ‘obvious and unmistakable’ error of pricing. The ombudsman reviewed the terms, and found that a consumer would not reasonably have known whether brake hoses were included in a service, or would come at an additional cost of £200.

Conclusion:

As such, it was considered that there was a breach of the Service and Repair Code in relation to the accuracy of information provided at the time of booking. The ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, but did not make a financial award, as they had not formed a binding contract for the booking. The ombudsman instead recommended the business reviewed its processes and training to ensure the information they provided to consumers was as accurate and up-to-date as possible.

The post Brake hose premium appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a brand-new hybrid hatchback from a dealership for around £22,000. On collecting the vehicle, the customer noticed a dent in the wheel arch, and notified the sales executive immediately, who explained that it would be repaired. However, the rest of the car was not inspected due to the vehicle being new, but on arriving home, the new owner saw damage to the bumper.

Due to it being too late in the day, the customer notified the business about this a few days’ later and, following a smart repair which did not resolve the issue completely, the bumper was replaced. The wheel arch was nevertheless left with a small pin prick dent after a repair, much to the dissatisfaction of the consumer.

In light of what had happened, the consumer was ideally looking for a replacement like-for-like vehicle, but the customer was informed that they could have another model costing nearly £50 extra per month, which they could not afford.

The dealership had also offered a free first-year service, as well as the repair of the wheel arch at no cost, which the consumer subsequently accepted as a resolution to their dispute.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and noted that the consumer and business agreed that imperfections remained in the wheel arch panel, but were subsequently repaired at no cost, as this was the consumer’s preferred option to resolve the matter in hand.

The adjudicator also remarked that the business had not heard from the customer since this was undertaken, which assumes that the work was to the consumer’s satisfaction, and that the issue had not re-occurred.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that, if a fault occurs after the point of sale, a business should be given “one-shot” to repair the vehicle. If the fault was to re-occur, the customer would be entitled to reject the vehicle for a refund.

The adjudicator stated that, following the repair work, there was no further evidence that would reasonably indicate the vehicle still suffered from the same fault or that it had returned.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts of the case, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint as no breach of the Vehicle Sales Code was apparent, and the case was closed.

The post Post-purchase repairs appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The customer bought a used ’67-plate hatchback for around £10,000 in May 2021, and around a year later, it broke down shortly after the car was serviced. Following the vehicle’s recovery to a dealership, the problem was diagnosed as being a fuel pump failure, and the consumer was told that the repair would initially be covered under the warranty.

However, a week later, the dealer got back in touch to inform the customer that there was evidence of petrol and diesel in the fuel tank, so the work would now not be paid-for under the warranty, much to the frustration of the consumer as they said this had not happened.

The customer said the dealership had not followed the correct process to diagnose the mis-fueling, as they did not provide a report with the fueling test results. After this, the warranty company organised their own independent inspection to assess the damage to the vehicle. This concluded that the fuel pump damage was caused by mis-fueling. Therefore, the warranty company upheld their position and the customer’s claim was declined.

The consumer believed that the cost of repairs (around £8,000), i.e. to replace the entire fuel system, were still eligible to be covered in line with the terms of the warranty, and also claimed not to have seen the inspection report. The customer did not believe the findings were accurate, as the inspection was completed several months after the initial failure had occurred.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, and explained that the warranty provider relies on the opinion of a technician to decide whether the claim is upheld or not. In this case, the technician reported that the fault was related to misfuelling by the customer, and there was no conflicting view of this, meaning the claim was declined correctly in line with the terms of the agreement.

Although the consumer’s complaint was not upheld, the ombudsman did explain to the warranty provider that they should have obtained evidence about the incorrect fuel being used as part of their claim assessment. Similarly, they should have provided a copy of the independent inspection report to the customer when this was requested.

If a customer’s claim is declined for reasons for which they are responsible, or the fault, in this case putting incorrect fuel into the vehicle, then they are entitled to ask and receive evidence showing this. This will also prevent disputes being escalated to The Motor Ombudsman.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence presented, the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no breach of the Vehicle Warranty Code was found. The case was closed.

The post Fuel pump failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a used 2018 SUV from a franchise dealership in August 2020. Around four years later, in July 2024, the consumer reported that the vehicle experienced a complete failure of the power steering system whilst driving. It was highlighted that a diagnostic by an independent garage identified a fault code, indicating an internal failure of the steering rack motor due to water ingress.

The consumer was advised by the dealer that they confirmed the same issue with the steering rack, but they did not detect the same fault code recorded by the independent garage. The consumer believed that the steering failure was not due to wear and tear, but the result of a manufacturing defect, as per the fault code and numerous other cases seen online, involving similar failures for the same vehicle model.

The business investigated the power steering issue in September 2024 which found that the power steering rack was the faulty component and required replacing due to internal component failure. The dealership explained that they had authority as a retailer to overrule any decision made by the manufacturer, and as the vehicle had no form of warranty, this is the reason the consumer was required to pay for the repairs.

To resolve their complaint, the customer was seeking a full reimbursement of the cost of repair to the steering rack, which amounted to £2,653.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the account of events from both parties. They noted that, as the issue arose more than six months after the sale of the vehicle, the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the SUV suffered from an inherent fault which was present at the point of purchase.

The adjudicator acknowledged the consumer’s submission in relation to the independent diagnostic report which identified the fault code and the information from social media that other vehicle owners experienced the same issue with their car. However, as no independent report had been provided for consideration in this case, the adjudicator was unable to take into account this aspect of the complaint.

Furthermore, the adjudicator explained that The Motor Ombudsman does not take social media commentary as a viable source of information, and this was not sufficient evidence to verify that the consumer’s vehicle had suffered the same fault as other owners.

The adjudicator also found that while the power steering rack fault was caused by water ingress, they did not receive sufficient evidence showing that the water ingress was inherent at the point of sale, such as it being caused by a manufacturing defect. The adjudicator concluded that it was likely that it would have become apparent sooner if the fault was a result of how the car was made.

Conclusion:

Based upon the evidence provided, the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no award was made. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.

Key learning point:

Disputes about faults that occur a considerable period after the purchase highlight the importance of independent evidence to substantiate a case.

Claims made by consumers must be supported by reliable technical reports rather than informal or anecdotal sources, such as social media commentary, as this does not necessarily justify that there are faults with the vehicle in question.

The post Power steering failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a brand-new diesel van from a franchise dealership for around £17,000. Soon after buying it, they noticed that the vehicle would stumble and hesitate after a couple of minutes, generally when in second gear. This posed a particular danger to the owner as they lived in a village and needed to join a fast-moving 60mph road. Due to the van stumbling, other traffic would start blowing their horns and drive around the consumer’s vehicle as it came to a standstill.

The consumer contacted the dealership, and they advised to bring the van in to diagnose the issue, but could not find a fault. The problem persisted, and the consumer returned the vehicle once again to the business for a period of eight weeks, only to inform the consumer that it was a characteristic of the van, which was not considered a satisfactory response from the consumer’s point of view.

However, with the onset of cold weather, the problem only got worse, and the consumer got back in touch with the dealership, where the business explained they had contacted the manufacturer about the issue, but did not have a solution, much to the frustration of the consumer.

As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking to have the issue fixed under their new car warranty, as they could not afford to part-exchange their van for a replacement, and incur a potential loss of around £7,000. Alternatively, they said they would have to wait until the temperature rose again above six degrees.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that there was a defect needing repair, and that the affected parts all fell under the remit of the manufacturer’s warranty.

Based on the evidence provided, and while there were multiple attempts to rectify the issue, and that it was inconvenient to the owner that the diesel engine took time to warm up during periods of cold weather, it did not demonstrate an inherent issue with the van, and was a characteristic of this model, as highlighted by the vehicle manufacturer. As such, the manufacturer was not liable for making any repairs and was not considered to be in breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s New Car Code.

Conclusion:

In summary, the adjudicator concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the issue resulted from a manufacturing defect, meaning they were unable to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour. Neither party contested the outcome, and the case was closed.

Key learning point:

A vehicle manufacturer’s legal obligation to consumers would only apply to the warranty given. If a consumer believes that their vehicle has a design flaw or a characteristic, which they believe renders it of unsatisfactory quality, the correct party to raise a dispute against would be the seller. Even if the retailer has the same name as the manufacturer, they may be a different legal entity.

The post Stumbling van characteristic appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

A consumer purchased a brand-new hybrid SUV from a dealership, after being told that the car had a towing capacity of up to 2,100kg – a figure also shown on the vehicle manufacturer’s website.

However, shortly after taking ownership, the customer subsequently found out that the maximum was only 1,500kg, which meant that their caravan could potentially exceed this, and leave them uninsured.

When the vehicle manufacturer was approached about the difference in towing capacity, they explained that their website offered advisory information and was subject to change.

As the consumer deemed this to be misleading, they were looking to hand back their SUV and be provided with a replacement car that had a 2,100kg towing capacity, or be awarded a price reduction for their existing vehicle.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the documentation provided by both parties, and highlighted that the consumer had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the dealership had breached the Vehicle Sales Code due to the SUV being mis-advertised prior to the point of sale. In this case, the consumer’s sales contract was with the dealership, not the manufacturer.

The adjudicator noted the original advert provided by the consumer, which highlighted the capacity of 2,100kg, as well as correspondence between themselves and the retailer and the manufacturer confirming incorrect information was advertised, and which was later amended. An audio call between the consumer and the retailer also saw further discussions about the mis-advertised vehicle.

Based on the course of events, the adjudicator determined that the retailer had failed in their obligation to supply the consumer with the correct information to allow them to buy a car that met their needs. As a result, the dispute was upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer accepted the adjudicator’s decision and opted for a price reduction. However, the dealership disagreed with this outcome, as they believed that the incorrect information had come from the manufacturer at the time of sale, meaning they were not liable for this.

As one party disagreed, the case was passed to an ombudsman for a final decision. They reviewed the evidence once again and the findings of the adjudicator, and noted that the advert showed a towing capacity of 2,100kg, and that the retailer was aware that the consumer wished to use a caravan, as they had also added the paid option of having a towbar fitted.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman equally noted an e-mail from the manufacturer showing the information on the website had been updated, and that the consumer distinctly referenced a conversation with the dealership, which suggested incorrect information about the towing capacity was provided by both them, and not just the manufacturer at the point of sale.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts provided, the complaint was also upheld in the consumer’s favour by the ombudsman, and awarded them their preferred award of a price reduction.

Key learning point:

It is essential that any information given to a consumer by both a vehicle manufacturer and retailer is accurate at the point of sale to allow a fully informed and transparent purchase decision.

The post Towing weight discrepancy appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer took their 14-plate premium estate car to a franchise dealership in mid-July 2021 due to a rubbing noise whilst driving. They investigated the problem, but kept changing their diagnosis of the fault that had occurred. Despite the car still not working, the dealership charged the consumer around £6,500 for the work that had been carried out without providing a quote before it was undertaken, and said the issue was due to a front wheel bearing that needed to be replaced.

The consumer returned to the dealership in mid-September 2021, but the car broke down on the way to the business. According to the customer, the business again mis-diagnosed the parts that had malfunctioned, and was eventually informed that the car would need a new engine at an additional cost of £13,000, which was more than the vehicle was worth.

The consumer also provided photos of new parts, such as a fuel pump, which had been left in the car, still in its original packaging, indicating components that had not been changed.

To resolve the dispute, the consumer was looking to be reimbursed for the initial cost of repairs (i.e. the £6,500) as they didn’t fix the problem, which they also said they would not have agreed to had they been aware of the price from the very beginning.

The business response:

In response to the consumer’s complaint, the dealership said that they were unable to locate the original job card with details of the work and the technician’s notes. The business also said that they had informed the consumer at the beginning that it would be a staged repair, and were unable to quote a price for the work when diagnosing a fault was not possible.

The dealership said they followed the manufacturer’s diagnostics process, which can result in the initial replacement of components. The business also explained to the consumer that, from the outset, they would take the most cost-effective approach, which they agreed with, and the dealership said that they had not charged for any repairs that had not been pre-authorised.

The business also said they carried out more than 10 hours of investigation work on the car for which they had not charged. They also applied a further discount to the total bill to the consumer as a gesture of goodwill.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator explained that the onus was on the consumer to prove that the vehicle’s faults were the direct result of the workmanship of the business. They also indicated that it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the diagnostics had been carried out.

The adjudicator said that, it was not only the manufacturer’s guidelines, but industry practice to resolve faults that may be considered less costly in attempt to see if such repairs would be sufficient in diagnosing the cause of the issue, before embarking on larger, costlier repairs as long as these were approved by the customer beforehand.

In regards to the claim that the dealership had consistently changed the diagnosis, the adjudicator found no evidence to prove this point. The consumer was also dissatisfied that the business had invoiced for the work carried out, despite the vehicle still not functioning. On this point, the adjudicator stated that the consumer’s refusal to have any further work done on the vehicle – in this case, to replace the engine, acknowledged the consumer’s acceptance that the car was still in a state of disrepair, but did not exclude them from paying any outstanding bills.

The consumer did not agree with the decision i.e. that their complaint was not upheld, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision.

The ombudsman reviewed the complaint, and said it was not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before diagnostic work, and that the business had followed a logical investigative process, and attempted to resolve the issue first with less costly repairs.

The ombudsman equally added that it was not necessary to order the fuel pump before stripping the engine to determine the cause of the fault. This was revealed as a timing chain that had snapped, thereby causing damage to other components.

The ombudsman remarked that the consumer had been charged for many other parts, and had provided pictures of these in the boot of the car still unopened. These included washers, nuts, bolts, and gaskets – all standard components that would be kept in a parts department, meaning there was no need for the consumer to be billed for these.

Conclusion:

Based on the evidence provided, the ombudsman partially upheld the consumer’s complaint, and concluded that the initial investigation costs were reasonable and should be paid by the consumer, but the balance of the charges should be refunded.

Key learning points:

• Diagnosing faults with cars can be complex, meaning it is not always possible to provide an estimate for the repairs before the investigation;
• Businesses should inform consumers about the repairs needed, and the possibility of additional work. It is also best practice to keep records in writing of what the consumer has been told; and
• Expensive parts should not be ordered unless the parts are strictly necessary and the consumer has been informed beforehand. They should equally not be charged for standard stock parts that are not used.

The post Changing repair diagnosis appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In October 2023, the consumer took their 19-plate SUV for its annual service at a dealership, and to investigate a noise coming from the left-hand side of the engine bay which had been present for around the last six months.

Upon collecting the car, the business told the consumer that the turbo had failed a vehicle health check, and that paint was also peeling on the bodywork. As the car was still under warranty, the consumer was asked to bring it back in for these issues to be looked into, and the dealership said that they would be in touch to book in an appointment.

After not hearing back for two and half weeks, the vehicle owner contacted the dealership, but the business explained they had no record of the previous conversation and had not been liaising with the warranty provider regarding making a claim.

As result, the dealership quoted £1,200 to do an investigation – a price which was later retracted after the consumer made a complaint, and the appointment was subsequently booked in for December 2023. However, a few days before this diagnostics work was due to take place, the turbo failed on a busy road, and the car had to be recovered back to the dealership. Despite a subsequent successful warranty claim, parts were not available for the repair, and a courtesy car was provided.

The consumer explained that they had already paid £1,100 for the service, and were therefore seeking a refund of this cost, as they deemed that the business let them drive away from the dealership with a vehicle in poor condition, and had not followed up with an appointment to rectify the turbo issue, leading to the failure.

As a goodwill gesture, and as the business had followed vehicle manufacturer guidelines for the service, and rectified all outstanding issues at no cost to the vehicle owner, including a steering rack rattle, they offered the sum of £150, but this was not a satisfactory amount for the consumer based on the inconvenience that had been caused.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, and pointed out that it could reasonably be seen from the invoices and job cards that the service had been completed correctly, and that the turbo does not form part of a service by any garage. Therefore, there was no doubt that reasonable care and skill had been used.

On the subject of the consumer not hearing back about making a follow-up appointment, the adjudicator said that, whilst this is best practice, there was no obligation by the business to get back in contact, as this was not a paid-for service, and that the responsibility was on the owner to ensure that their car was well maintained, and that any outstanding issues are resolved. Nevertheless, the dealership made an apology after the consumer thought the level of customer service was substandard from their perspective.

In terms of the parts delay, this was beyond the control of the dealership, and therefore the business could not be held liable for this element of the consumer’s complaint.

Conclusion:

As there was no evidence to support the consumer’s position on any of the points raised, the case was not upheld in their favour, and no further awards were made. The adjudicator pointed out that the dealership had made several gestures of goodwill beyond the amount of £150, and that there were no demonstrable financial losses incurred by the consumer based on the evidence provided.

Key learning point:

A business is entitled to be paid for any agreed work completed correctly on the vehicle. A refund will only be awarded if it is found that the work was carried out incorrectly, or that it was done without prior authorisation.

The post SUV turbo failure appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.