Ombudsman Evidence do I have a smoking gun?

alessandro

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82014824#Comment_82014824

That isn't my argument though. They said whilst it was on their property they had 4 people including seniors road test it. The 19.2 mile trip was transporting the car from A to B and back again with the same guy. Unless they stopped the car multiple times and let people out at random points on the way they haven't tested the car. As per the right to reject they have a right to one repair attempt if they didn't do that and the car faults again and I have some evidence of it albeit narrated videos not showing my feet I'm unsure what else I can do?

They also refused at one point to send someone out or let me take the car to them and additionally offered to let me drive another car of the same make to see if it does the same and when I took them up on it they rescinded the offer.

This is not aimed aggressively at yourself but I'm just bored now of jumping through their hoops and getting nowhere and them blocking every path either of us offers.

paul_c123

I have no incentive to, but I'm doubting if the car is faulty. They have every incentive to deny it. It doesn't alter the fact, you still need to prove its faulty. Just arrange for it to be independently inspected if you're going round in circles with the dealer.

alessandro

You may doubt it I am not going to try and convince you otherwise. Given they need to prove it ISN'T faulty due to it's age I struggle to see how they have done that by taking it into a workshop and doing not much with it. I'll leave all my evidence in the hands of the ombudsman and go with what they say I suppose.

paul_c123

You've misunderstood the CRA2015. I think what you are referring to, is that IF there is a fault, it is assumed it was there at point of sale (within the first 6 months). However there needs to be a fault. They don't need to PROVE it isn't faulty. You need to prove it is. And so far, you've not done that. One way to do it is to agree on an independent inspection from a third party. You'd need to agree on who, before getting it inspected in such a way though.

I thought you said the financial ombudsman has already made their decision?

alessandro

No the finance company have not the Ombudsman. I fail to see how my proof which includes video evidence, dates and times and reams of evidence including all correspondence and other bits and pieces including witness statements doesn't amount to anything especially when balancing probabilities.

I will also point out as per my obligation I gave them an opportunity to check the fault and they didn't.

However weak my supposed evidence may be to you it still beats a potentially bull report from the dealer when trying to repair it.

sheramber

You haven’t answered which Ombudsman you have contacted.

The FOS deal with financial claims only.

The Motor Ombudsman deals with issues about a car.

alessandro

The dealership, finance company and financial ombudsman told me to go with them so it's with them now (Financial Ombudsman)

Herzlos

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82014834#Comment_82014834

I don't disagree that they've been less than honest about it, though that's probably something you need to be contacting Suzuki directly about too.

My point was largely that if you get them to concede they didn't road test it like you were told, and they don't claim that was a misunderstanding and it's still been road tested, and you get them to agree to road test it again properly, you've still no assurance that they'll find anything wrong.

It's something to bring up but it's no silver bullet to solve this; only proving that there's a fault will do that.

At this stage I can't tell if it's overly obtrusive safety features or a genuine fault. But I don't know how you'd prove that unless they let you drive an equivalent demonstrator.

alessandro

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82015040#Comment_82015040

Sorry if I came across Aggy it wasn't intentional

I guess for me I wonder if I now solely leave it with the ombudsman given I have telemetry and GPS data and an email from them with the assertion will hopefully balance it in my favour with the FOS. Especially with the videos and statements I have. I know it's not a silver bullet but it's now more than Suzuki Finance have when they try and explain the complaint rejection now I have potential evidence the road tests never took place. They also named the people who did the road test so it'll be difficult to dismiss it as accidental miscommunication i.e. the road test solely revolved around the round trip.

I imagine at the worst (for me) is the FOS order an independent inspection paid by Suzuki Finance which is where I am now but the hope is a flawed investigation (which they admitted) helps the FOS rule in my favour especially as I have evidence that when I took them up on an equivalent demonstrator (both with the dealer and finance company) they rejected it.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82014557#Comment_82014557

I really think you are seeing how the current level of development of driver assist technologies (of any manufacturer) operate and the quirks that there are.

The brake system will see parked cars, oncoming traffic that straddled the centre line, pedestrians, cyclists etc as all reasons to slow down. A driver would manage speed and direction of travel as a coherent set of parameters. The auto-brake / adaptive cruise is not doing so, it will just see the potential obstacle and slow down without considering any other mitigations that might be applied.

The pull-away part of adaptive cruise control (I assume that is what you refer to) is not really there to be used in that way such that when you stop you can just pull away from a standstill. ACC is for assistance in free-flowing lane roads. Relying on it as a feature all the time means the car in front pulls away and your car won't move until the gap has increased to allow for the necessary safety braking distance to be created.