The Consumer Rights Act remains an important piece of legislation, and few would argue against the principle that consumers deserve protection when purchasing a vehicle.
Trust is fundamental to the motor trade, and the vast majority of reputable dealers want customers to have confidence when buying a used vehicle. Consumer protection plays an important role in maintaining that confidence and ensuring standards across the industry.
However, ten years on from the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act, the automotive landscape has changed dramatically. Today’s vehicles are no longer simply mechanical products. They are sophisticated, software-driven machines packed with sensors, control modules, driver assistance systems, emissions technology and increasingly complex powertrains.
As technology has evolved, so too have the challenges facing consumers, dealers and those tasked with resolving disputes when things go wrong.
The question we should now be asking is not whether consumers deserve protection. They absolutely do. The question is whether the current framework fully reflects the realities of the modern used vehicle market.
A different world
When many of today’s consumer protection frameworks were developed, vehicles were fundamentally different. Modern vehicles can contain dozens of interconnected control modules, advanced diagnostic systems, software updates, emissions technology, connected services and increasingly complex electrical architectures.
Electric vehicles have added another layer of complexity, while even traditional petrol and diesel vehicles are now heavily reliant on software and electronics. As a result, faults are no longer always obvious, consistent or easy to diagnose. A warning light may appear one day and disappear the next. A software-related issue may only occur under very specific driving conditions. A fault code may not immediately identify the root cause. In some cases, technicians may need multiple investigations before a definitive diagnosis can be reached.
This is not a reflection of poor workmanship or unwillingness to resolve issues. It is simply the reality of modern vehicle technology.
One of the biggest challenges facing the industry today is the rise of intermittent faults. Unlike a traditional mechanical failure, intermittent issues can be difficult to replicate, difficult to diagnose and difficult to evidence. They may occur once and then disappear for weeks or months before returning.
This creates challenges for everyone involved. Consumers understandably want answers when something appears to be wrong with their vehicle. Dealers want to resolve legitimate issues quickly and professionally. However, where faults cannot be replicated or immediately identified, the process can become increasingly difficult.
Recent discussions among independent dealers highlight how these situations are becoming more common. One dealer recently described selling a low-mileage Skoda which was returned by the customer less than three weeks later with claims that the vehicle would intermittently fail to engage first gear. Despite extensive inspection, road testing and the dealer personally driving the vehicle, no fault could be replicated or identified.
The vehicle had covered more than 500 miles during the ownership period and, according to the dealer, was also returned with damage that was not present at the point of sale, including scuffing to both the front and rear bumpers. The interior additionally required re-valeting before it could be returned to stock.
Whether that vehicle ultimately had a genuine issue is not the point. The example illustrates how modern disputes are increasingly centred around complex diagnostic challenges rather than straightforward mechanical failures.
Dealers under pressure
Alongside vehicle complexity, many dealers are also expressing concern about changing customer expectations. Used vehicles are, by definition, used. They have age, mileage and wear characteristics that are very different from new vehicles. Yet many dealers feel customers increasingly expect used vehicles to perform to near-new standards regardless of age or usage.
In recent dealer discussions, examples have been raised of rejection requests months after purchase and after significant mileage has been added by the customer. Other dealers report disputes relating to faults that cannot be replicated despite extensive testing and investigation.
Again, these examples should not be viewed as evidence that consumer protection is wrong. Rather, they highlight the increasingly complex situations being encountered across the industry. The challenge is finding a fair balance between protecting consumers and recognising the realities of ageing vehicles, evolving technology and genuine diagnostic uncertainty.
What many dealers are ultimately asking for is not the removal of consumer rights but greater clarity. How should intermittent faults be assessed? How many repair attempts are reasonable where software or diagnostic complexity is involved? How should expectations be managed on older vehicles with higher mileage? How should responsibility be determined where faults emerge long after sale but are difficult to evidence?
These are not simple questions, but they are questions the industry increasingly finds itself grappling with. As vehicle technology continues to advance, there may be a need for clearer guidance, greater consistency and more collaborative discussion between dealers, manufacturers, legal experts, finance providers and consumer groups.
According to Jim Saker, Chairman of the Institute of the Motor Industry (IMI), the core principle behind the Consumer Rights Act remains sound, but the practical challenges facing dealers have changed significantly as vehicle technology has evolved.
Saker argues that traditional vehicle appraisal and inspection processes are no longer sufficient to protect dealers or consumers in an era of increasingly software-driven vehicles. Modern vehicle checks should now include comprehensive diagnostic assessments, verification of outstanding software updates, confirmation of ADAS calibration status, EV battery health reporting and documented records of all diagnostic results prior to sale.
As vehicles become more complex, he believes the industry must recognise that identifying potential issues before sale requires more sophisticated processes, greater technical expertise and additional investment from dealers.
A wider conversation
This is not about dealers versus consumers. The vast majority of dealers take pride in doing the right thing and resolving issues fairly. Equally, consumers deserve confidence that they will be protected when genuine problems arise. The challenge lies in ensuring the framework continues to evolve alongside the vehicles it is designed to govern.
Across the industry there is growing recognition that modern vehicle technology is creating new challenges which deserve thoughtful discussion rather than polarised debate.
This view is shared by many industry leaders. Jim Saker, Chairman of the IMI, has highlighted the need for vehicle inspection, appraisal and diagnostic standards to evolve alongside the technology now found in modern vehicles. Without greater clarity around diagnostic requirements and expectations, there is a risk that legislation designed to protect consumers becomes increasingly difficult to apply consistently in practice.
At Warranty Solutions Group, we believe the time has come for a wider industry conversation focused on education, clarity and practical solutions.
Over the coming months, we will be exploring these issues in greater depth through industry research and stakeholder discussions.
John Colinswood is CEO of Warranty Solutions Group
