Finance agreement unwound because of a failed repair

The reliance on vehicle inspection reports by Automotive Consulting Engineers, commonly known as ACE, and reports by car finance companies has become part and parcel of investigating faulty car complaints.

But these reports have come to be interpreted as fact rather than evidence, and have become determinative of whether to uphold a complaint or not and replacing the investigation.

The case of Ms H and her Range Rover Evoque illustrates how ACE reports can be misconstrued and go unchallenged by finance companies.

The relevant facts

Ms H bought an Evoque for around £27,500.00 from Saxtons 4×4 by way of a conditional sale agreement with Santander Consumer Finance. About a month after collecting the car, Ms H returned it to Saxtons because the automatic gearbox was juddering.

A software update was carried out to resolve the problem, but it persisted, and Ms H booked the Evoque in at Land Rover Maidstone for diagnostic inspection, who confirmed the car was jolting when changing gear.

The supplying dealer sent the car to Lindacre Ipswich for checking, who reported no fault codes found, and the gear changes were satisfactory.

Nevertheless, Saxtons told Ms H they were sending the Evoque to a gearbox specialist to get an opinion on the problem. Ms H rejected the car.

At the instruction of the dealer, Gravesend Transmissions fitted a replacement gearbox, but Ms H informed them the problem persisted, and it was agreed that an ACE report be obtained.

The ACE Report

The ACE report stated that the problem with the gear changes was a characteristic of the transmission operation, but also reported a fluctuation in transmission gear selection at high speeds.

However, the ACE engineer concluded the transmission appeared to be operating normally.

Because of this, Ms H booked the car in with JT Automatics Limited, automatic gearbox specialists, who confirmed the gearbox was not operating correctly and missing its identification tag and calibration sticker, and Ms H reiterated her Range Rover rejection, which Santander declined.

Our Instructions

Stormcatcher were instructed to advise Ms H and to represent her in challenging Saxtons’ and Santander’s decision to not uphold her complaint and deal with the Financial Ombudsman complaint.

Preliminary decision

The Financial Ombudsman investigator found in favour of Ms H and suggested Santander Consumer Finance should unwind the finance agreement, but Santander didn’t agree, and the complaint was escalated to the Ombudsman.

Decision

The Ombudsman considered the ACE report and the opinion of JT Automatics, finding that the latter, being a specialist in Land Rover automatic gearboxes, was more likely to be accurate. This was supported by the ACE report, confirming that further checks would need to take place at a suitably equipped dealer.

Santander was ordered to unwind the finance agreement, refund the deposit and the monthly payments paid since the car was off the road, along with Ms H’s out-of-pocket expenses.

The full decision can be found here.

Conclusion

This complaint shows how misinterpreting the evidence, exclusively relying on an expert report and discounting circumstantial, witness, and documentary evidence can lead to the wrong conclusions. For legal advice involving car finance and the legal rights in relation to faulty goods phone 0333 700 7676.