FOS Decision Upheld Electric Vehicle

acev88

The FOS have recently upheld my complaint regarding a faulty EV and that I was not adequately informed by the dealer or advertising from Arnold Clark.

The link below states the battery size and refers to the gross capacity, EV’s have a usable net capacity which is not referenced and is the figure which should be used for the calculation on pg. 12.

I can’t share the link but if you google Arnold Clark Handy EV Guide you will find it. Not so handy in my opinion.

I will share the link to the decision when it is published. VWFS have accepted the decision and the agreement has been cancelled with a refund of my deposit as well as compensation as this has now taken over a year.

Hopefully this can help anyone in the same position as me.

DullGreyGuy

Cases are only published if either you or the finance company reject the decision of the Adjudicator/Investigator and its then escalated to an Ombudsman. With an Ombudsman the finance company dont get asked if they accept or reject it and as you say that VWFS accepted the decision that would suggest it was the lower level so won't be published. 

Assuming it wasn't a lease vehicle you are somewhat lucky, the FOS only has powers over the finance company so they could have agreed to cancel the finance but leave you on the hook for the purchase of the car now without finance unless it was a Lease.

acev88

DullGreyGuy said:

Cases are only published if either you or the finance company reject the decision of the Adjudicator/Investigator and its then escalated to an Ombudsman. With an Ombudsman the finance company dont get asked if they accept or reject it and as you say that VWFS accepted the decision that would suggest it was the lower level so won't be published. 

Assuming it wasn't a lease vehicle you are somewhat lucky, the FOS only has powers over the finance company so they could have agreed to cancel the finance but leave you on the hook for the purchase of the car now without finance unless it was a Lease.

It was PCP and decided by the Ombudsman so will be published. As I mentioned it took a year and I disputed the Investigators decision. VWFS did get the opportunity to reject the provisional decision and provide reason, they did not they accepted it.

The finance company did agree to end the contract and refund the deposit as mentioned. They are to collect the car and it is going to an auction house.

VWFS have already paid the dealer, through the PCP agreement. My agreement was with VWFS which has now been cleared with nothing further to pay as per FOS instruction.

Mildly_Miffed

https://www.arnoldclark.com/cdn/static/electric-cars/electric-vehicle-handy guide.pdf

This guide?

The only "calculation" on page 12 of the PDF is multiplying the kWh/mile figure from the dash computer by the battery capacity to give an estimate of range. And, while, yes - you're right - it should be the usable capacity not the gross - I'd be very surprised indeed if that was sufficient for an entire PCP to be unwound...

It's not a huge difference - take a nominal 62kWh VW ID.3. The usable is about 58kWh.
For a NEDC 215 mile range (the ONLY figure that can legally be quoted to sell a vehicle), that's the difference between 3.47kWh/mile and 3.71kWh/mile. Or, to turn that around, at 3.71kWh/mile it would be the difference between 215 and 229 mile range. But since the dash also displays the calculated range remaining...

DullGreyGuy

acev88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cases are only published if either you or the finance company reject the decision of the Adjudicator/Investigator and its then escalated to an Ombudsman. With an Ombudsman the finance company dont get asked if they accept or reject it and as you say that VWFS accepted the decision that would suggest it was the lower level so won't be published. 

Assuming it wasn't a lease vehicle you are somewhat lucky, the FOS only has powers over the finance company so they could have agreed to cancel the finance but leave you on the hook for the purchase of the car now without finance unless it was a Lease.

It was PCP and decided by the Ombudsman so will be published. As I mentioned it took a year and I disputed the Investigators decision. VWFS did get the opportunity to reject the provisional decision and provide reason, they did not they accepted it.

An Ombudsman, not the Ombudsman, I doubt Abby reviews any cases herself even though she is The Ombudsman. 

The interim is just part of the process and many cases the interim is rejected by one party or even both and ultimate stands as the final decision. A decision by an ombudsman is binding on the finance company and so even though it may deviate from the provisional decision they won't be asked to approve/reject it. 

acev88

Mildly_Miffed said:

This guide?

The only "calculation" on page 12 of the PDF is multiplying the kWh/mile figure from the dash computer by the battery capacity to give an estimate of range. And, while, yes - you're right - it should be the usable capacity not the gross - I'd be very surprised indeed if that was sufficient for an entire PCP to be unwound...

It's not a huge difference - take a nominal 62kWh VW ID.3. The usable is about 58kWh.
For a NEDC 215 mile range (the ONLY figure that can legally be quoted to sell a vehicle), that's the difference between 3.47kWh/mile and 3.71kWh/mile. Or, to turn that around, at 3.71kWh/mile it would be the difference between 215 and 229 mile range. But since the dash also displays the calculated range remaining...

Yes that one. 

You may be surprise but that along with the performance of the car was enough to prove it was likely faulty at point of purchase as did not lead to making a informed purchase. 

My car for example the usable capacity was 10% less, significant in its own right according to the FOS. Will share when publicised. 

The car when performing at 2.3mi/kWh 64.7kWh usable and 71.1kWh capacity. So that means approximately;
148 mi achievable
163 mi marketed 

However I was only getting 100-120 mi per full charge at 2.3mi/kWh. Yes I did do all the necessary steps, reset the trip etc.

Admittedly it was likely a combination of both which resulted in the Ombudsman decision. However I did not post this to debate the merits of it, only to make anyone experiencing a similar situation aware. The CRA is clear that it should be advertised correctly, the Ombudsman states this in the decision. The fact I made AC aware of this in May last year and they have still not updated it is concerning. 

Grumpy_chap

It is not entirely clear what the grounds of the OP's complaint were.

It seems as though it is that the stated (official test) energy efficiency was not matched in real life.  If that is the basis of the complaint, then would the same issue apply to all cars (EV and ICE)?  Whether it is a variance in miles / kWh or miles / gallon, it amounts to the same thing.

Am I misunderstanding?

acev88

DullGreyGuy said:

acev88 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Cases are only published if either you or the finance company reject the decision of the Adjudicator/Investigator and its then escalated to an Ombudsman. With an Ombudsman the finance company dont get asked if they accept or reject it and as you say that VWFS accepted the decision that would suggest it was the lower level so won't be published. 

Assuming it wasn't a lease vehicle you are somewhat lucky, the FOS only has powers over the finance company so they could have agreed to cancel the finance but leave you on the hook for the purchase of the car now without finance unless it was a Lease.

It was PCP and decided by the Ombudsman so will be published. As I mentioned it took a year and I disputed the Investigators decision. VWFS did get the opportunity to reject the provisional decision and provide reason, they did not they accepted it.

An Ombudsman, not the Ombudsman, I doubt Abby reviews any cases herself even though she is The Ombudsman. 

The interim is just part of the process and many cases the interim is rejected by one party or even both and ultimate stands as the final decision. A decision by an ombudsman is binding on the finance company and so even though it may deviate from the provisional decision they won't be asked to approve/reject it. 

Yes AN Ombudsman decision. The investigator did not uphold it, it the went to AN Ombudsman. The final decision letter states “VWFS accepted this decision”. Perhaps wait and read it if you are interested.

acev88

Grumpy_chap said:

It is not entirely clear what the grounds of the OP's complaint were.

It seems as though it is that the stated (official test) energy efficiency was not matched in real life.  If that is the basis of the complaint, then would the same issue apply to all cars (EV and ICE)?  Whether it is a variance in miles / kWh or miles / gallon, it amounts to the same thing.

Am I misunderstanding?

The complaint was on the grounds that the information provided to calculate the expected “real world” range based on a real world efficiency figure quoted the wrong figure to use. It stated battery size and highlighted the battery capacity not the usable capacity. Therefore overstating the possible mileage achievable for any mi/kWh driving figure.

acev88

The also don’t provide the usable capacity for my car anywhere on their website, nor was I made aware in the dealership or on any paperwork. A key piece of information to omit.

DrEskimo

It feels like two different issues are being conflated here.

The fact you were only achieving 100-120miles is certainly grounds for a rejection and an indication of a fault. I get more than that on my 41kWh Zoe...

The whole advertise range seems like a separate issue entirely, and would be surprised if it got rejected on those grounds alone. You had a faulty car.