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 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 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.

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.

In March 2024, a consumer collected their new compact SUV from a franchise dealership. A week later, they experienced issues with the speaker system, and took their car back to the seller for a repair. The consumer was informed that, if the issue continued, then new speakers would be ordered. The issue persisted however, and the following month, the consumer contacted the dealership for new speakers and explained the infotainment screen had also gone blank, meaning there was now a couple of faults with the vehicle.

The consumer got back in touch with the business to report what was happening, and to request the supply of new parts, but they received no response from the dealership. After the consumer repeatedly followed up with the business, the vehicle was eventually repaired, and after fixing the issues, which also included experiencing no speed, fuel or rev indicators, the infotainment screen froze once again.

With multiple faults occurring since buying the car, the consumer expressed their wish to reject it, but was told by the dealership that they could not find fault any faults with it and could not offer any further assistance.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence supplied by both parties, including correspondence, repair records, and videos of the vehicle’s faults. They noted that, as the issues arose within the first six months of purchase, the burden was on the dealership to show the defects were not inherent at the point of sale.

The adjudicator explained that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, where a fault is found, the seller has one opportunity to repair the goods before the buyer can exercise the right to reject. Whilst the business had replaced the speakers and carried out a software update, the consumer’s videos showed the infotainment screen freezing and the speedometer failing to display – issues impacting both usability and safety.

Given that the problems persisted after attempts to fix the car, the adjudicator concluded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality when sold, amounting to a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code.

Conclusion:

As the business had exhausted its right to repair and the consumer wished to reject the vehicle, the adjudicator upheld the complaint and directed the dealership to accept the rejection as the viable remedy.

However, the consumer part-exchanged the car. In the event that a consumer no longer owns a vehicle and rejection is awarded as a remedy, The Motor Ombudsman can make an award as the Consumer Rights Act 2015 allows a customer to claim for damages.

The Motor Ombudsman’s usual approach is to calculate the amount the consumer would have received if they had rejected the car minus a deduction for usage compared to the actual amount they received when they sold the car. If the rejection value was higher than that from the sale, the consumer would be awarded the difference for the loss incurred.

Key learning point:

It is important that when faults arise within six months, businesses should evidence repairs that have been carried out to resolve the issue, and consumers should keep clear records to support any ongoing issues.

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

In August 2023, the consumer purchased a used 69-plate mid-size pickup from a dealership for around £30,000. Starting from a month after purchase, the consumer reported issues with the vehicle. The dealership repaired it twice, but the issues continued, so the consumer complained to the business that their four-year-old pickup was not of the expected quality.

The dealership and consumer agreed the vehicle could be returned for a refund, subject to deductions for use. However, the consumer felt the sum calculated by the retailer for the miles covered since purchase was excessive. The consumer explained this deduction rate did not account for the proportion of the mileage covered, that involved travelling to the dealership for repairs, the poor quality of the vehicle, the inconvenience and time spent addressing the faults, and the fact they did not benefit from the warranty they had purchased.

To help resolve their dispute, the consumer proposed a lower deduction rate, but the dealership rejected this. Instead, the consumer accepted a refund for the vehicle, as they were worried about being left with a car that was not fit for purpose. Nevertheless, to bring their complaint to a close, the consumer was seeking a lower deduction rate for the miles travelled to be applied retrospectively, equating to an additional refund of £1,300.

The case outcome:

From the evidence provided, the adjudicator noted several faults were identified and repaired within six months of purchase. This included issues with the drive shaft clamp, low pressure EGR cooler filter, AdBlue injector, and diesel particulate filter. It was presumed under the Consumer Rights Act (2015) that these faults were present at the point of sale, and it was the dealership’s responsibility to show otherwise. However, the retailer did not provide any such evidence.

Considering the type and number of faults that were repaired within six months of purchase, the adjudicator concluded these were likely present at sale, and therefore determined that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale when the consumer bought the pickup.

For the Bluetooth problem, the adjudicator explained that faults reported after six months of purchase are generally presumed not to have been present at sale, and there was no evidence to dispute this.

The adjudicator also noted that the issues raised by the consumer had been successfully repaired, meaning there was insufficient evidence to prove otherwise. The adjudicator therefore could not determine the dealership was required to accept a rejection of the vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act (2015). Instead, its return appeared to be a goodwill gesture. When it came to the deduction rate applied to the mileage travelled since purchase, this was at the dealership’s discretion, and therefore no further action could be taken on this point.

Conclusion:

In summary, the complaint was partially upheld in the consumer’s favour, and the consumer was awarded a written apology for the number of faults they experienced shortly after buying the pickup.

Key learning point:

Once faults that were present at purchase are resolved, a business is no longer obliged to provide a further remedy to a consumer, such as a rejection or replacement vehicle.

The post Pickup purchase faults appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a brand-new electric hatchback from a local dealership, and was told when buying the car, they would be able to charge it for free at the business’s premises for free throughout the three-year contract for the vehicle.

Living nearby, the consumer proceeded to charge one to two times a week at the dealership, but after 18 months, this facility was removed without any explanation or warning. When the consumer raised this with the business, the branch manager who accepted what had been offered at the time of sale, explained that the decision had been taken due to rising energy costs, and said that no formal agreement had ever been made about this service.

Unhappy with this, the consumer raised a complaint with both the dealership and The Motor Ombudsman to get the issue resolved. They explained that the provision of free charging was an incentive to buy the car, and was seeking compensation to the amount of £1,500 in light of what had happened.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman reviewed the evidence provided by both parties, and noted that the provision of free charging for the duration on the contract formed part of the purchase agreement.

While the adjudicator acknowledged the rationale behind withdrawing such a facility, the dealership had made an agreement with the consumer as part of their purchase.

On this basis, the adjudicator upheld the complaint and stated that the business should either allow the consumer to continue charging for the remainder of the agreed period, or provide a price reduction for the purchase of their vehicle. The value of lost charging was calculated at an average of £1,300 for the 18 months that it had been withdrawn.

The consumer accepted the decision, but the business challenged it on the basis that no formal agreement existed between the two parties, and requested an ombudsman’s final decision.

Upon the review of the case, and with additional information provided by the consumer, the ombudsman noted that the contractual term for the vehicle was four years, not three as previously stated.

Conclusion:

The ombudsman agreed with the findings of the adjudicator, and recommended an award of the equivalent of £2,400 as a price reduction, based on the consumer not being able to use the charging facility for two and a half years of the pre-agreed period.

Key learning points:

As a consumer, it is important to make a note or document in writing any promises made at the point of sale, which form an important part of your decision to make a purchase so that these could be relied upon later if ever needed.

For a business, it is important to be clear about any promises made at the point of sale and when they would cease to apply to the consumer.

The post Free EV charging appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In January 2023, the consumer purchased a used 15-plate hatchback with 82,000 miles on the clock from a dealership under a hire purchase agreement. Within four months, the consumer reported faults with the boot not opening properly, and subsequently experienced other more serious mechanical problems, including engine vibration, a knocking noise, and a diagnosis of flywheel and clutch failure.

The consumer faced difficulty finding a garage willing to carry out repairs under the third-party warranty, which caused delays, but eventually an independent repairer agreed to inspect the vehicle. After partial repairs were authorised in July 2023, the vehicle broke down again within one mile of being collected.

The car was towed back to the garage, and after reporting the problem to the selling dealership, they directed the consumer back to the warranty provider and refused to accept further responsibility. The car remained off the road at the garage for an extended period, and the consumer continued to make finance payments while also being without a working vehicle, despite asking for these to be paused.

As a resolution to their dispute, and deeming the car to be faulty at the point of purchase, the consumer requested a replacement or a functional vehicle, and expressed frustration with the lack of support from the dealership, finance provider, and warranty company.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence provided by both parties and, as the faults were reported within the first six months of purchase, the burden, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, was on the dealership to prove that they were not present at the point of sale.

Given the early and serious nature of the mechanical failures, and the lack of supporting evidence from the business demonstrating that the issues were not pre-existing, particularly relating to the flywheel and clutch, and the breakdown immediately following attempted repairs, it was concluded that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the time of sale.

The adjudicator also considered the level of customer service provided by the business. It was concluded that the dealer failed to support the consumer in arranging repairs, provided delayed responses, and declined to provide call recordings requested to support the consumer’s complaint. While a hire car was offered for over 90 days, the root problem of the faults with the vehicle remained unresolved.

Conclusion: 

Based on the course of events, the complaint was upheld in favour of the consumer, and they were awarded the right to reject the vehicle. A deduction for usage of the vehicle in terms of the mileage covered whilst owning the car, was also made.

Key learning point:

Used vehicles must be sold in a roadworthy condition, even those with higher mileage. Where early and significant faults arise, business must fulfil their legal obligations under the Consumer Rights Act and cannot rely solely on the cover by third-party warranties to resolve issues with a vehicle, such as those which are electrical or mechanical.

The post Point of sale issues appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

The consumer purchased a used 15-plate premium saloon for around £22,000 from a dealership in June 2018.  Around four years later, in October 2022, the car failed to start. Due to financial difficulties, the consumer was unable to initially have their car recovered for repair. However, when it did eventually go into a franchise dealer (belonging to the same manufacturer as their vehicle), the problem was diagnosed as a faulty electronic control unit (ECU), and that there was no evidence of misuse of the car by the owner.

Nevertheless, the business explained that the consumer was still obliged to cover the cost of the repairs and, aware of their consumer rights, the consumer went back to the seller to request that they that they either recover and repair the vehicle at no cost to them, provide an identical replacement vehicle, or offer appropriate compensation.

The customer also stated that the selling dealership had, at one point, given the option to part exchange their car for another at no additional cost. However, the business disputed the claim, leading the consumer to submit a subject access request to disclose the data they had on them. The business responded with this information, but the consumer deemed that certain call recordings had been withheld. The consumer equally said that the dealership had pressured them into deleting recordings once the business had become aware the consumer was recording calls without their permission.

In response, the business stated that they had not deliberately withheld any data from the consumer and had not received any requests for call recordings. While they did not directly address any promises regarding a replacement vehicle, they expressed confusion as to why the consumer chose to scrap the vehicle instead of contacting them about a potential part-exchange if that was their intention. The business did not provide a formal position regarding the vehicle’s electrical faults.

The case outcome:

The adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties and provided the following conclusions on the three different aspects of the complaint:

Data concerns

The adjudicator established that complaints relating to an individual’s access to their personal data fall outside The Motor Ombudsman’s remit. As issues concerning access to personal data are regulated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), the adjudicator stated that the consumer should contact the ICO, as they are the appropriate authority to investigate such matters.

Promises regarding a replacement vehicle

The adjudicator found that, for an agreement to be legally binding, the consumer would have needed to provide “consideration”, such as payment or an exchange of value, for the alleged promise of a replacement vehicle. As there was no evidence of this, any promise made by the business was deemed a goodwill gesture rather than a contractual obligation. Since there was no evidence of a legally binding agreement for a replacement vehicle, the business would have been within its rights to withdraw from any informal promise that may have allegedly been made.

The consumer’s claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015

The adjudicator reviewed the third-party invoice provided by the consumer, which confirmed the vehicle had an electrical fault. However, the vehicle was over eight years old and had already exceeded 100,000 miles at this point. They had also owned the vehicle for more than four years.

The adjudicator noted that, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods must be of satisfactory quality, taking into account factors such as age, mileage, and condition. Given that the ECU had failed after more than four years of use, the adjudicator concluded that this did not indicate that there was an inherent defect with the vehicle. Additionally, the third-party invoice provided by the consumer neither specified the cause of the failure.

Moreover, since the vehicle had already reached what The Motor Ombudsman considers to be the average lifespan of a car, the adjudicator found that, even if an inherent defect had been present, its failure at this mileage would not make the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Consequently, the consumer was not entitled to any further remedies under this legislation.

Based on the evidence provided, the dispute was not upheld in the consumer’s favour, and no award was made. The outcome was not disputed by either party, and the case was closed.

The post Electronic control unit fault appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.

In September 2023, the consumer purchased a brand-new sports car from the manufacturer. Upon delivery, they discovered that the alarm and immobiliser were missing, which formed part of the advertised vehicle specification at the time of sale.

The customer raised this concern with the manufacturer, and they responded by explaining that they could not have them retrofitted, as these systems were not included on UK models due to regional specification variations. However, as a gesture of goodwill, the business did offer the consumer a financial contribution to have the technology fitted by a third party if this was something they would be looking to pursue.

The case outcome:

The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties. As this was a misrepresentation claim, the misrepresentation must be evidenced on three accounts, namely:

1. There was an incorrect representation (i.e. the information provided);
2. The consumer relied on this representation when entering the contract; and
3. There was a loss caused by the misrepresentation.

This set of criteria was met through the customer’s submission of the online advertisement showing the inclusion of an alarm and immobiliser system as standard on the specification list, correspondence indicating the consumer’s reliance on these features, and recognition in the market of the missing equipment.

Having established that specification was missing on delivery, the discrepancy between the advertised and actual specification, contravened the requirement under The Consumer Rights Act 2015 that goods must conform to their description. Similarly, it was also established that there was a breach of The Motor Ombudsman’s Vehicle Sales Code, which states that vehicles must be accurately described as per the specification provided at the time of sale.

Although the arguments of the manufacturer were considered in relation to the regional specification differences to justify the absence of the alarm in UK models, the consumer’s claim was nevertheless upheld, as goods must match their description regardless of regional variations. As a result, the business was set a SMART recommendation by The Motor Ombudsman to amend their specification lists to clearly illustrate such regional differences going forward.

In light of what had happened, the consumer was entitled to a remedy, which could include a rejection, repair or a price reduction in line with the Consumer Rights Act. However, since the consumer sought a repair as a satisfactory resolution to their dispute, a reimbursement of a third-party installation cost was awarded, and the case was closed.

The post Missing vehicle specification appeared first on The Motor Ombudsman.