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.

The consumer purchased a two-year-old used SUV from a retailer in May 2018 for £21,000. Three years after the point of sale in May 2021, at the vehicle’s fourth annual service interval at a franchise dealership (during the COVID-19 pandemic), technicians noted that the consumer had informed them about an oil leak from the differential which required repair. The business tightened the securing bolts to rectify the issue, and advised the consumer to call back within a month to return the car to the workshop to see whether the repair had proved effective. However, the consumer did not pursue this course of action.

Instead, over 17 months later, they complained to the manufacturer and requested the differential was replaced under warranty, as they deemed it was not possible to repair a differential leak simply by tightening the bolts, as it was a sealed unit. The manufacturer declined the claim on the basis the warranty had expired 14 months prior to receiving it.
The manufacturer also argued the consumer had failed to follow the advice of the repairer, and that the warranty required a defect to be identified within the period the policy was active. The manufacturer also advised the SUV had not been serviced in line with their recommended intervals, which was a requirement to make a claim.

The consumer did not agree with the findings, and requested that the differential unit was replaced at no cost to them – a repair estimated to cost around £1,000.

The case outcome:

As the case required a final decision due to the consumer not accepting the adjudication outcome, the ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided and explained the only relevant liability of the manufacturer was from the warranty and The Motor Ombudsman’s New Car Code. As such, he would be unable to comment on the actions of the dealership, other than where they were relevant to the manufacturer’s warranty.

The ombudsman noted that, irrespective of any COVID-19 concerns, the consumer had an obligation to service the vehicle as per the recommended intervals, and most repairers had protocols in place to minimise exposure to COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Additionally, the vehicle had also not been serviced prior to the onset of COVID-19 in 2020. The ombudsman therefore determined that the vehicle manufacturer was entitled to decline the consumer’s claim on this point alone.

In terms of whether tightening the bolts was an adequate step to take – a point contested by the consumer, the repairer recommended the consumer returned the vehicle within one month to determine whether the issue had been resolved. By ignoring the issue for an additional 17 months, the consumer undoubtedly caused further damage to the vehicle. Had the consumer simply followed the advice, they could have proceeded with the next steps in their warranty claim.

The manufacturer’s warranty equally required defects to be reported to an authorised repairer as soon as they are discovered. The ombudsman considered it was reasonable for the consumer to pursue advice about bringing their car back to the franchise repairer for a follow-up check to help resolve a potential issue. By failing to do this, the consumer had not complied with their obligations under warranty.

Conclusion:

The ombudsman concluded it was unreasonable for the consumer to not follow the repairer’s advice and still expect warranty coverage some 13 months after the warranty expired to replace affected components at no cost. As a result, no breach of the New Car Code had been identified, meaning the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The post Differential oil leak claim appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer bought a used two-year-old 18-plate pickup truck in November 2020. Two years later, in September 2022, they reported the discolouration of the scuttle panel below the windscreen wipers.

A claim was therefore made by a dealership on the consumer’s behalf to have the issue repaired under the manufacturer’s new car warranty, but this was declined on the basis that the problem was due to an external influence, namely that the consumer had used the wrong cleaning products.

In response, the customer said that they had never been informed about the types of cleaning products that could be used on the vehicle, and believed the material was not fit-for-purpose, and had degraded due to UV damage.

As a resolution to their complaint, the consumer was looking for the defective scuttle panel to be replaced under warranty, rather than having to pay the estimated £200 cost.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided, and explained that the consumer had the responsibility of showing that there was a manufacturing defect.

The adjudicator noted that the scuttle panel showed evidence of defects in the form of marks and stains, which appeared to be in line with the remains usually left after the pooling of a cleaning product which subsequently dried out. The manufacturer had also stated that the defect was the result of a cleaning product which had caused discolouration, and that the consumer had not used the right products or cleaned the vehicle in a way that was in line with the instructions laid out in the owner’s manual.

As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the warranty claim had been correctly refused, as there was no evidence available to demonstrate that the discolouration was the result of UV radiation causing premature wear, or a manufacturing defect. Therefore, no breach of the New Car Code had been identified, meaning this element of the dispute could not be upheld in the consumer’s favour.

The consumer disagreed with the outcome on the basis of the adjudicator’s findings, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision. Upon reviewing the case, the ombudsman noted that blotches of stains in random patches on the scuttle panel suggested that water and cleaning products were left in certain areas, and caused circular markings upon drying. Based on this, the ombudsman came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator in that no manufacturing defect was present, and no award could be made to the consumer.

The customer in this case also did not think the material used in the manufacturing process for the scuttle panel was fit purpose. Therefore, the customer was advised by the ombudsman to make a claim against the selling dealership under the Vehicle Sales Code. The Code of Practice requires vehicles to be sold as fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality.
Separately to this, the consumer was also unhappy with the lack of information they were given by the dealership about the cleaning products that should be used, and the fact that they could not provide answers on this.

As the member of staff at the dealership did not have knowledge of this at the time of raising their concerns, this aspect of the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the ombudsman recommended that the manufacturer equips its network with the right information to be able to answer questions from customers, especially when it relates to a warranty claim.

Conclusion:

In summary, the case was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour. However, no response was received from either party, and the case was closed.

The post Discoloured scuttle panel appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a used 11-plate saloon for £24,000 from a dealership in October 2012 (registered in March 2011). The car came with a 12-year anti-perforation warranty at the point of sale (i.e. valid until March 2023), and the consumer reported four areas of corrosion on their vehicle to a franchise dealership in February 2023 before the agreement expired.

Believing that the corrosion was covered under the terms of the policy, a claim was made to the vehicle manufacturer to have the repair carried out under warranty, but this was declined because it was considered by the manufacturer to be ‘edge and fold’ corrosion following an inspection by the dealership. However, as a goodwill gesture, the manufacturer offered a 70% contribution towards the quoted cost of repair of around £1,400, meaning the consumer would be liable for the remaining portion.

The consumer was not in agreement with this decision, as they stated that the warranty terms within the vehicle handbook contained no specific exclusion to ‘edge and fold’ corrosion, and reiterated that the full cost should be borne by the manufacturer as a resolution. This was compounded by the fact that the dealership was unable to provide a copy of the inspection report as they stated it belonged to the manufacturer.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the terms of the policy, as well as the photos provided by the consumer. The evidence showed that the corrosion was on the edge of the bodywork of the car, meaning this was surface corrosion and not caused by corrosion from the inner cavities of the bodywork, meaning this was not covered under the terms of the policy. The adjudicator added that paintwork concerns would have been covered by the manufacturer’s three-year warranty in relation to this area, but this had long expired, so could not be referred to.

In conclusion, the adjudicator was unable to uphold the consumer’s complaint, and recommended that the consumer accepts the goodwill gesture offered by the manufacturer.

Although the manufacturer agreed with the findings, the consumer however, disagreed with the adjudication outcome, and requested for the case to be reviewed by an ombudsman. Upon reviewing the evidence, the ombudsman agreed with the adjudicator, and explained that the corrosion was more likely to have been caused by external factors, and did therefore not meet the terms of the 12-year anti-perforation warranty, as it was not caused by a manufacturing defect from the inner cavity of the bodywork.

Conclusion:

As a result of the evidence presented, and in the absence of any report provided by the consumer as to the cause of the corrosion, the complaint was not upheld by the ombudsman, and they also recommended that the consumer accepted the goodwill gesture.

Key learning points:

An early explanation from a business about why a claim has been declined can help consumers understand what is covered under the terms of a warranty. A report from the technician who inspected the car explaining what caused the corrosion could have prevented the complaint being passed to The Motor Ombudsman.

In these cases, The Motor Ombudsman will usually want to see:

1. A copy of the warranty document;
2. A copy of the report from the technician who inspected the car. This should provide an opinion about the cause of the issue; and
3. The final response from the business. This should include reference to the evidence considered, and an explanation about why a claim has been declined.

The post Anti-perforation warranty claim appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The customer’s pickup developed issues with the EGR cooler within the manufacturer’s warranty period, and the EGR coolant pump was subsequently replaced. However, 16 months after the repairs were completed under warranty, the engine management light came on, and fault codes that were previously present in relation to the coolant pump, reappeared.

The vehicle, which was still within warranty at this point, was taken to dealerships in the manufacturer’s franchise network on two separate occasions. However, they could not diagnose any faults, and advised the consumer to monitor the problem.

Two months passed, and the vehicle owner returned to one of the dealerships due to the re-occurrence of the same fault codes relating to the EGR coolant pump. On this occasion, the business decided to replace the EGR coolant pump under warranty for the second time to fix the problem.
Nevertheless, eight weeks’ later, the engine suffered a catastrophic failure, and the fault codes relating to the EGR coolant pump were also present again. At this point, the dealership recommended the replacement of the engine, but as the manufacturer’s warranty had now expired, the manufacturer offered to cover only 75% of the costs, leaving the customer to pay the remaining portion.

The customer declined this offer, because from their perspective, the initial fault occurred within the warranty period, therefore making the manufacturer liable for covering the entire cost of repair – the main point of contention considered in this case.

The case outcome:

When looking into the dispute, it was important for the ombudsman to create an accurate timeline of events to show what had happened each time the problem was reported, to determine if the fault to the engine occurred within the warranty period.

It was not disputed that repairs to the EGR coolant system were completed under warranty on two occasions before the engine failed. The EGR coolant pump was replaced, and then was changed for a second time 16 months later. The engine then failed and needed to be replaced. The ombudsman therefore noted that there appeared to be an underlying issue with the vehicle that was causing the EGR coolant pump to stop functioning.
In the first instance, the business believed the issue to be with the EGR coolant pump, which is why this was replaced. However, when this part failed again nearly a year and a half later, and after the vehicle had covered a further 20,000 miles, this should have indicated a deeper problem was present inside the engine.

Instead of replacing this part again, from the ombudsman’s point of view, more should have been done by the business to investigate what the underlying problem was. As the EGR coolant pump had already been replaced, this should have informed the dealership in the manufacturer’s network that this was not the underlying issue. If a deeper investigation into the engine was completed within the warranty period, then this could have prevented the subsequent engine failure that occurred two months outside of the warranty period.

Based on the course of events that were documented within the evidence provided, the complaint was upheld in the consumer’s favour, meaning the manufacturer was responsible for the full cost of replacing the pickup’s engine.

The post EGR coolant pump failures appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a brand-new large premium SUV in March 2020. Two years later, in November 2022, I noticed white marks appearing on the bonnet, which were increasing in size over time.

I therefore took my car back to the selling dealership, and they arranged an inspection at their bodyshop, and they seemed to indicate there was an issue with the paintwork, and implied that it would be covered by the three-year manufacturer’s warranty, which was valid until March 2023. The report clearly indicated that the paint was blistering on the bonnet and that it was not an issue caused by any kind of external influence.

The repair was estimated to cost in the region of £1,500, so the dealership submitted a claim to the manufacturer to have the bonnet rectified under warranty, but this was declined, as they had a contrasting opinion, and deemed the issue to not be a manufacturing defect.

As I did not believe this to be the case, I commissioned my own independent inspection from an engineering expert, and their findings highlighted that the damage was not caused by external influence, and that it was likely that the defects were embedded within the paint applied by the factory. Therefore, contrary to the evidence supplied by the vehicle manufacturer, they could see no reason why the repairs should not be covered under warranty.

As a fair resolution to my complaint, I am looking for the repairs to be undertaken at no cost to myself, and for the £300 fee for the independent report to also be reimbursed”.

The accredited business’ response:

• In January 2023, the consumer contacted our customer relationship team to raise a complaint regarding paintwork concerns on the bonnet of their vehicle.
• The car was then taken to one of our dealerships for investigation, which confirmed that the cause of the markings on the bonnet was paint surface damage, indicative of an outside influence that affected the paintwork.
• Therefore, we are not able to cover the repairs of the vehicle under our warranty, as it cannot be classed as a manufacturing defect.

The adjudication outcome:

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the cause of the fault with the paintwork was due to a build defect covered under the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty agreement.
• The adjudicator noted that the consumer’s claim had been declined, but could not see within the terms of the warranty any mention of what the manufacturer considered to be an ‘outside influence’, nor had they specified what they believed the external cause to be in relation to the paint blistering on the consumer’s vehicle. Therefore, the adjudicator could not apply much weight to this evidence.
• The adjudicator therefore reviewed the reports provided by both the dealership that inspected the consumer’s vehicle, as well as that supplied by the engineering expert. Both of these documents concluded that there was no external influence that would have caused the paint to blister, thereby meeting the terms of the vehicle manufacturer’s paint surface warranty.
• In light of the evidence presented, the adjudicator therefore upheld the consumer’s complaint, and requested that the vehicle manufacturer reimbursed the full cost of the report, and carried out a respray of the bonnet at no charge.

The response to the adjudication outcome:

• The consumer accepted the adjudication outcome, but as the manufacturer did not respond within the allotted timeframe, the case was passed to an ombudsman for a legally binding final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

• The ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided, including the terms of the vehicle manufacturer’s warranty, their response, and the reports from the dealership and independent expert.
• Based on what had been presented, the ombudsman came to the same conclusion as the adjudicator, and was satisfied that the damage was most likely to have been caused by a manufacturing defect, rather than being due to an external cause.
• The ombudsman therefore made an award for the damage to be repaired at the manufacturer’s expense, and also decided that the cost of the independent report should be refunded to the consumer.

Conclusion:

• The consumer accepted the final decision, and the case was closed.

The post Blistering bonnet paint appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a 63-plate people carrier in January 2014, and in May 2022, I noticed rust developing on my vehicle’s bonnet. I therefore took it to one of the manufacturer’s franchise dealerships to have the problem looked at, and they informed me that my warranty claim had been turned down by the vehicle manufacturer. The repair bill is in the region of £1,000.

I was very disappointed with their decision, so I informed the dealership that I had taken my car to a manufacturer-approved bodyshop, where they inspected the vehicle and confirmed that the rust was caused by corrosion all along the front edge of the bonnet.

I wanted to know for sure who was responsible for rejecting my claim, so I contacted both the dealership and manufacturer, but unfortunately, I received conflicting answers.

To resolve my dispute, I just want the manufacturer to fix the problem and replace the bonnet under warranty at no cost to myself, especially since a manufacturer-authorised bodyshop said that the bonnet has since perforated as a result of the rust.”

The accredited business’ response:

• We have liaised internally with our technical team, and requested a response as to why the cost of repair cannot be covered by our warranty, and highlighted the fact that the consumer deemed the corrosion to be coming from the inside out, and should have been covered by the 12-year anti-perforation policy.
• It has been found that the problem reported is not a perforation issue, but is surface corrosion caused by a breach of the paintwork as a result of an external influence, such as stone chips. Therefore, this type of corrosion is only covered by our three-year paintwork warranty (the consumer’s vehicle is older than this), and our warranty team determined that this issue had been ongoing for some time, and was not reported as soon as it had manifested itself, as per the warranty guidelines.
• To conclude, moisture has entered via the breach, and started to corrode the surface of the panel under the paint. Therefore, this does not fall under our 12-year anti-perforation warranty, meaning the repair cannot be covered on this occasion, and we are unable to provide any further assistance to the consumer.

The adjudication outcome:

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator noted that the burden was on the consumer to demonstrate that the cause of the fault was a manufacturing defect covered under the terms of the warranty.
• They also made reference to the fact that the vehicle manufacturer’s responsibilities are outlined under the terms of their warranty, which distinguishes between the coverage provided by the three-year paintwork warranty and the 12 year anti-perforation agreement.
• A critical aspect of the adjudicator’s analysis of the warranty coverage involved interpreting the term ‘internal cavities’ within the context of the anti-perforation warranty.
• Referring to the common understanding of this term, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary – ‘internal’, meaning inside the body, and ‘cavity’, denoting a hole or empty space between two surfaces – the adjudicator inferred that ‘internal cavities’ are concealed spaces within the structure of the vehicle that are not readily visible from the outside.
• The adjudicator emphasised that these spaces typically reside within the body of the vehicle, between panels and layers, excluding surface-level areas. This understanding helped establish the scope of the anti-perforation warranty, which specifically covers rust originating within these concealed spaces, thereby leading to perforation.
• In assessing the consumer’s claim, the adjudicator requested job cards and reviewed photos shared by the consumer. However, based on the available evidence, there was no substantive documentation demonstrating that rust had originated from the internal cavities.
• The dealership’s job cards noted that rust had developed, but did not state that the vehicle had met the requirements under the anti-perforation warranty. Moreover, the photos provided by the consumer displayed surface-level rust, and this did not appear to be developing from the inside out, as covered by the anti-perforation warranty.
• The adjudicator’s decision not to uphold the consumer’s complaint was based on a careful examination of the evidence in conjunction with the common understanding of the term ‘internal cavities,’ aligning with the anti-perforation warranty’s intended coverage. This approach ensured a fair and objective assessment of the warranty claim.
• However, the adjudicator found that the manufacturer did not provide a timely and effective response to the consumer’s complaint, as they did not share this reasoning as part of their initial claim rejection, and had caused unnecessary delays during the appeals process.
• The adjudicator recommended further training for the manufacturer’s authorised dealerships to accurately communicate their claim decisions in the first instance.

Conclusion:

• The vehicle manufacturer accepted the adjudicator’s decision. The consumer did not respond to the case, so it was closed.

The post Bonnet corrosion dispute appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a used 70-plate supermini from a car supermarket in July 2021, and on Christmas Eve that same year, the car broke down, and it was recovered to my mother’s home. The day after Boxing Day, the vehicle manufacturer’s breakdown service came out, but were unable to recover the car to the brand’s nearest franchise dealership. This meant that I had to hire a car at a cost of £828 for 10 days until my own vehicle could go into the dealer for repairs on 12th January 2022.

Due to a one-year delay in the replacement parts being available, my car stayed at the dealership, during which time I received no updates at all from the business, despite making multiple phone calls to try to get an answer.

After the work was finally carried out, and I collected my car on 5th January 2023, I asked for the documentation to have a written record of the repairs that were conducted to my car. However, the dealership said they were unable to provide it due to data security issues, and the manufacturer has also not provided any paperwork. At the time, I also raised concerns about the depreciation in the value of my car, but they denied my request to trade it in.

To resolve my complaint, I am looking for an apology for the poor service received, and an acceptance that the lack of communication, which caused me stress and anxiety. I am also seeking a detailed and documented account of all the repairs that were carried out on the vehicle, with a list of the parts that were replaced, and when they were fitted.

I would also be keen to receive compensation for all the phone calls I made, as these were often made using a mobile phone.”

The accredited business’ response:

• We offered the consumer a £350 contribution towards the cost of hiring a car for the 10-day period, which equated to the maximum we would pay if we had rented a vehicle during this period.
• However, this offer was declined by the customer, as they wanted the full amount of £828 to be reimbursed.
• We, as the vehicle manufacturer, would not normally provide a hire vehicle if the customer’s car was not at one of our dealerships having an issue diagnosed.
• In this case, the issue was not a manufacturing defect, so what we provided was a gesture of goodwill.
• After a significant delay waiting on the various parts to complete the repair, the vehicle was repaired under warranty on in December 2022, and a replacement vehicle was supplied at no charge to the consumer between 13th January 2022 until 5th January 2023, when they collected their car.
• We believe that we have provide adequate assistance to the consumer, and are unable to offer anything more as a resolution.

The adjudication outcome:

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator acknowledged that the consumer had raised a complaint against the repairer – which was addressed in a separate case under the Service and Repair Code, and against the vehicle manufacturer – the subject of this dispute under the New Car Code.
• Unfortunately, the seller was not accredited to The Motor Ombudsman, and therefore, the consumer was advised that, any dispute in relation to the purchase of the vehicle, would need to be addressed with Citizens Advice.
• In terms of the different aspects of the consumer’s complaints, the adjudicator concluded the following:

The provision of a courtesy car

• The adjudicator explained that, under the New Car Code, the manufacturer did not have a legal obligation to provide a hire car or contribute towards the costs of one.
• They equally, did not have the responsibility to cover any fuel or hire car costs from not immediately providing a courtesy vehicle.
• As a result, this element of the complaint was not upheld.

The delay for the supply of replacement parts

• The adjudicator noted that the manufacturer had acknowledged that there was a significant delay in supplying the parts for the repairs to the consumer’s vehicle, which constituted a breach of the New Car Code, and would be upheld on this point.
• The adjudicator also remarked that the part had been supplied, and a courtesy car provided for most of the time that the consumer’s vehicle was at the dealership.
• The adjudicator added that The Motor Ombudsman was unable to award compensation for non-quantifiable losses, such as for stress and inconvenience, with the same applying to any phone calls made, as it was difficult to assign a monetary value or an appropriate sum for reimbursement for these calls.
• In light of what had happened, the adjudicator recommended a goodwill gesture in the form of a 358-day extension to the vehicle’s warranty, once the initial three-year agreement expired, to reflect the period that the consumer’s vehicle was off the road.

Conclusion:

•  Both parties accepted the adjudication outcome of the consumer’s dispute being partially upheld in their favour, and the case was closed.

The post Christmas vehicle breakdown appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I bought a used high-performance estate from an independent car retailer for around £28,000 in June 2021. In February 2022, I noticed blistering on the front wings of the car. I therefore contacted the vehicle manufacturer to report the problem, and they said that the vehicle was still covered under its 10-year corrosion warranty.

I was advised to visit my closest franchise dealer, and they proceeded to refer me to a body repair specialist that explained that the problem was corrosion. However, the dealership refuted these findings and said that the issue could not be repaired under warranty. I got in touch with the manufacturer once again to explain that I was not happy with this decision, and they recommended that I got a second opinion from another dealership to be able to overturn this. I did just that, and this business said the blistering was caused by stone chips, and would not be covered under warranty.

As I was still not convinced the dealerships were correct in their diagnosis, I took my vehicle in April 2022 to a local repair shop where they removed the front wings, which revealed the extent of the corrosion. I therefore had the rust removed from inside the panels and the nearside wing replaced at a cost of £1,150. I contacted the manufacturer once again, and they said that the wing that was removed had to be sent to the dealership where I had received the second opinion. Their new warranty expert determined it was corrosion and reported this back to the manufacturer.

Nevertheless, this opinion was soon dismissed by the manufacturer, as they said the warranty expert at the dealership had only provided a point of view, rather than being qualified to do so. After going back to the dealership for a fourth time, the manufacturer finally stated that, although it was corrosion, they would not honour their warranty as I had made the decision myself to have the car repaired.

However, I find this report inaccurate, as I had no other choice, and I made my decision to have the repair completed by an independent expert. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for a full refund of £1,150 from the manufacturer that I paid out to have my vehicle repaired.”

The accredited business’ response:

• After seeking expert advice and opinions from the body repair specialist, and from one of our dealerships, and regardless of whether the corrosion was ‘through-corrosion’ or corrosion due to stone chips, the consumer made the decision to repair the vehicle themselves through their chosen independent garage.
• They initially advised the need to repair the wing, and later realised it needed a complete replacement after they began work on it.
• As the repair work was not done by a manufacturer-approved repairer, it is not warrantable, meaning we are unable to cover this under warranty on this occasion.
• We apologised to the consumer for any miscommunication that may have transpired throughout their dealings with the parties involved, and we understood the frustration and disappointment in the outcome of the investigation.

The adjudication outcome:

• There were two aspects to consider for the adjudication outcome. The first was regarding the manufacturing defect, with the second being about the repair of the vehicle by the independent garage. 

The manufacturing defect

• The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator explained that the consumer had the evidential burden of showing that the cause of the defect was due to a manufacturing defect covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.
• Although the consumer argued that the repair of the corrosion should have been covered under the warranty, a second opinion from the dealership stated that the fault was caused by external influence i.e. stone chips.
• As the consumer had not provided any further evidence to the contrary, on the balance balance of probability, the defect was more likely than not due to this.

The repairs to the vehicle

• The adjudicator said that, as the repair was carried out at an independent garage, i.e. outside of the manufacturer’s franchise network, the manufacturer did not have any obligation to cover the consumer’s costs for the repairs that had been undertaken.
• In summary, the adjudicator was not able to uphold the complaint in the consumer’s favour on either aspects.

The consumer’s response to the adjudication outcome:

• The consumer rejected the adjudicator’s decision, stating that three separate parties all agreed that the vehicle had suffered from corrosion.
• The only reason the consumer arranged repairs with an independent garage was because the dealership originally told them that the claim would not be covered under warranty.
• The consumer therefore believed the manufacturer had done all that they could to avoid covering the claim under the terms of their warranty.
• The consumer also added that, as it was agreed that corrosion was the issue, the manufacturer was trying to rely on the repair being completed outside of their network to avoid covering the cost of the work that had been done by the independent garage.
• Based on the above, the consumer asked for the complaint to be reviewed by an ombudsman for a final decision.

The ombudsman’s final decision:

•  The ombudsman reviewed the evidence available, and was not satisfied that the vehicle manufacturer had adequately responded to the consumer’s complaint.
• Whilst the business was relying on the fact that the consumer had repairs carried out outside of its network, they ignored fact that they had initially incorrectly diagnosed the corrosion on the wings of the vehicle, which led the consumer to having to seek repairs elsewhere.
• The ombudsman used the correspondence between the manufacturer and the consumer to create a timeline to assess whether the warranty had been administered in the correct way.
• The evidence showed that the dealerships inside the manufacturer’s network had incorrectly diagnosed the corrosion when the vehicle was initially presented to them, meaning the ombudsman did not find it unreasonable that the customer sought repairs elsewhere when the warranty claim was declined.
• The timeline of events also showed that once the repairs had been completed by the independent garage chosen by the consumer, the dealerships inside the manufacturer’s network were shown the removed component and they all agreed it was corrosion.
• Therefore, the customer should have received the benefit of the manufacturer’s warranty, as a manufacturing defect was found within the warranty period.
• Just because the dealership failed to correctly diagnose the fault did not equate to the fact that the manufacturer did not owe the customer an obligation to cover the repairs at no cost under their warranty.
• The ombudsman therefore upheld the consumer’s complaint in their favour, and directed the business to reimburse the consumer the sum of £1,150, as they had failed to correctly diagnose the manufacturing defect under the terms of their warranty.
• The ombudsman also recommended that the manufacturer issued a formal apology to the consumer, and that it should provide the necessary feedback to its dealerships to ensure warranty claims are handled in the correct way going forward.

Conclusion:

•  The consumer accepted the final decision, and a full refund of £1,150 was arranged for the repair carried out by the independent garage in April 2022. The case was closed.

The post Front wing corrosion appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

“I purchased a brand new 69-plate hybrid hatchback in November 2019. Less than three years later, in October 2022, I noticed that paint was peeling on the roof. I therefore contacted the dealership to report the problem, and I was then referred to a manufacturer-approved bodywork specialist centre to have the vehicle inspected.

The specialist centre found a lower paint depth around the area of concern, which they believed to be the result of a manufacturing defect. However, the dealership refuted the findings of the specialist, and said that the issue was because of external influence, such as bird lime.

I contacted the manufacturer to explain that I disagreed with this diagnosis, but they still declined my claim. To resolve my dispute, I am looking for a full repair of the defective area to be conducted under the terms of the manufacturer’s warranty at no cost to myself.”

The accredited business’ response:

•  Whilst we can understand the customer’s frustration with the decision made by our dealership, we do rely on the technicians in our network and at authorised bodyshop specialists to diagnose and investigate issues with customer vehicles.
• This is because they have the technical expertise and the required diagnostic equipment to be able to find the root cause of problems that are reported.
• The terms of our warranty state that damage or defects resulting from an external cause and/or natural phenomenon are excluded and cannot be covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
• However, it does seem on this occasion that the paint specialist and the dealership have differing opinions on what has caused the paint to peel.
• Nevertheless, once a warranty decision has been made by either our warranty team or the dealership, we do not have the power to overturn this decision.
• Whilst we appreciate that the customer is not satisfied with the decision to reject the warranty claim, we believe the claim was correctly declined.
• Therefore, we are unable to cover the cost of repair under the terms of our warranty on this occasion.

The adjudication outcome:

•  The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator considered the version of events provided by the business and the customer, and explained that the complainant in this dispute had the evidential burden of demonstrating that the fault with the paintwork was covered within the scope of the manufacturer’s warranty.
• The adjudicator also explained that a decision would be made on balance of probability and the terms and conditions of the warranty.
• Based on the evidence provided and the information available, the adjudicator disagreed with the outcome reached by the manufacturer to decline the customer’s warranty claim.
• The adjudicator took into consideration the outcome reached by a qualified bodyshop technician in stating that the defect was indeed a result of a manufacturing error.
• The specialist provided a statement whereby his inspection showed that the paint thickness on the area of concern was lower than the standard thickness of paint used on other parts of the vehicle.
• As such, the adjudicator found that the conclusions of the specialist held more weight than a decision made by the manufacturer’s own warranty team to dismiss the claim based on photographic evidence alone.
• As such, on the balance of probability, the adjudicator found it to be more likely than not that the issue encountered by the customer was down to an error in the manufacturing process.
• Therefore, the manufacturer was found to be in breach of the New Car Code, and in light of the findings, the customer was entitled to a free of charge repair to the defective area, and for the paintwork to be rectified in line with industry standards.

Conclusion

•  Both parties accepted the outcome reached by the adjudicator.
• The consumer confirmed to the adjudicator that the manufacturer had subsequently been in touch to book the vehicle in for the agreed work.
• The case was then closed with no further action required.

The post Peeling roof paint appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.