Car dealers need clearer guidance on fault investigation times before buyers can reject vehicles under the Consumer Rights Act, Warranty Solutions Group (WSG) has warned.
Half of dealers surveyed by the warranty provider had experienced customers reporting a fault and immediately requesting vehicle rejection rather than first allowing a repair.
Some 40% identified intermittent faults that are difficult to diagnose as a Consumer Rights Act challenge, while 85% believed, at least to some extent, that modern vehicles were too technologically complex for the current framework.
Complex faults require extended investigation
WSG said software, sensors, electronic control systems, advanced driver assistance systems and EV technology had changed the demands of vehicle diagnostics.
Faults can involve several systems or appear only under particular driving conditions, requiring extended testing or manufacturer support.
John Colinswood, chief executive of WSG, said an apparent single fault could involve two or three interacting issues.
He said: “Some vehicles simply cannot be diagnosed and repaired in one visit. That doesn’t mean the retailer is unwilling to put the problem right.
“It means they need a reasonable opportunity to establish what the problem actually is before they can fix it.”
Amy-Jane Marsden, managing director of ProTech Academy, said intermittent faults were among the most difficult problems technicians faced.
She said: “People often assume that you can simply plug a vehicle into a diagnostic machine and it will immediately tell you what’s wrong. Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple.”
Marsden said some faults could only be identified by analysing live vehicle data over time, with diagnosis potentially taking days or weeks.
Consumer rejection rights remain
Consumers generally have a 30-day short-term right to reject a vehicle that fails to meet the Consumer Rights Act’s requirements, including satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and description. They do not have to accept a repair before exercising that right.
After that period, repair or replacement is generally the first remedy. A failed repair or replacement, unreasonable delay or significant inconvenience can trigger the final right to reject. What constitutes a reasonable time depends on the circumstances.
Professor Jim Saker, president of the Institute of the Motor Industry, said dispute handling needed to reflect the stages involved in diagnosing modern vehicle faults.
He said: “Some faults require time. Some require multiple stages of investigation. Some only become fully understood after software updates, additional testing or manufacturer support.”
Saker supported the principles behind the legislation but called for technicians to have sufficient time to investigate faults and explore diagnostic options.
Colinswood said assessments should consider whether dealers had acted promptly, kept customers informed and had a fair opportunity to investigate and repair the fault.
He said: “There is an important difference between a retailer failing to act and one that is actively trying to resolve a problem.”
WSG argued that straightforward mechanical failures and intermittent electronic faults could present different challenges.
Colinswood added: “Protecting the consumer and giving skilled technicians a reasonable opportunity to identify and repair a genuine fault shouldn’t be competing objectives.”
Ensure you always receive AM insights. Make us a preferred source of news on Google