Successful rejection of remapped and modified Mercedes AMG C63

Vehicle modification and remapping are widespread and often not declared by the seller, leaving the buyer none the wiser until something goes wrong. By which time, if outside the 6-month Consumer Rights Act, it can be difficult to prove when the car was remapped and modified.

This was the basis of Mrs M’s complaint to Alphera Financial Services about the C63 she bought from them on Hire Purchase.

Mrs M came to us after Alphera did not uphold the complaint, because they were unable to determine when the modification would have been added.

The facts

Mrs M bought the AMG C63 from a car dealer for around £32,000.00 by way of a Hire Purchase agreement with Alphera via Magnitude Finance acting as the broker. The Vehicle was advertised as having a full-service history.

Having collected the car and on the way home, the engine management light came on, and the engine seemed to run rough, so Mrs M took the car into a local garage for diagnostic testing, which suspected it had been remapped.

Mercedes-Benz later confirmed the engine had a misfire, but it was thought that changing the spark plugs would resolve it, but it didn’t.

A further six months later, further fault finding was carried out, which revealed the exhaust system and catalytic converter had been modified and with them the software.

The problem persisted and Mrs M rejected the car both to the dealer and the finance company, who declined to accept it.

Our Instructions

Stormcatcher Law represented Mrs M in challenging the decision of the finance company through the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This required a detailed analysis of the technical evidence, including the fault codes, symptoms, and service history. This was applied to the facts and the relevant laws, in a lengthy submission, detailing how the symptoms, previous repairs and fault codes were together demonstrative of remapping.

The modified exhaust and catalytic converter require software modification to ensure they function correctly. Because of this, the remap, at least in part, could be traced to the time of the exhaust modification, which predated the purchase.

Preliminary decision

The Financial Ombudsman Service investigator concluded that the evidence and facts presented indicated the car was misfiring and therefore not performing as would be expected, and these issues were as a result of modifications and remapping completed on the car prior to it being supplied to Mrs M.

The investigator found the car had been misrepresented and was not of satisfactory factory quality, and Alphera were directed to unwind the finance agreement.

Alphera disagreed.

Decision

Because Alphera disagreed, the complaint was escalated to an Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman considered the available evidence and Stormcatcher’s arguments and agreed with the investigator’s findings in upholding the rejection.

The HP agreement was unwound, the deposit and payments from when Mrs M stopped using the car were refunded, along with two additional monthly payments and £500 compensation.

The full decision can be read here

Conclusion

Because the car was in use for close to 18 months before the rejection, this was a challenging case which involved the legal concepts of acceptance, usage, right to repair, as well as misrepresentation, negligence and breach of contract.

Although a lengthy process, Stormcatcher Law successfully argued the case for Mrs M, achieving a fair outcome.

If you would like to know more about our automotive law services and whether you can reject a car, contact Stormcatcher Law today.