Motor Ombudsman rules car tech ‘unsatisfactory’ after six years

A decision by The Motor Ombudsman (TMO) has sparked debate after a car was deemed of “unsatisfactory quality” nearly six years after purchase, due to a failure in the infotainment system.

The dispute centred around a vehicle purchased new, whose infotainment screen went blank five years and nine months into ownership. The TMO ruled that the failure occurred prematurely, breaching the Vehicle Sales Code and requiring the dealership to fund the full cost of a replacement unit.

The case raises broader questions about what constitutes “reasonable durability” in modern vehicles and the extent to which consumers can rely on long-term expectations of component performance.

In its adjudication, the Ombudsman invoked the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods - including vehicles - to be of satisfactory quality and "reasonably durable." TMO stated that the expected lifespan of electrical components like an infotainment system is approximately 10 years. On that basis, the system had only lasted around 57.5% of its expected lifespan.

As such, the Ombudsman concluded the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale and upheld the consumer's complaint.

The ruling has drawn criticism from industry legal advisor Jason Williams at automotive law firm Lawgistics, who called the decision “bizarre” and warned that it undermines confidence in TMO’s framework.

“TMO appears to suggest that if any major electrical component fails before the ten-year mark, the vehicle was never fit for sale - regardless of when the fault arises,” Williams said. “This is concerning, especially considering that under English and Welsh law, a breach of contract claim must be brought within six years of the sale.

“This ruling was made at five years and nine months - just within that limit - but would presumably have been the same at six years and one month, where a court would no longer have jurisdiction.”

In response, Bill Fennell, chief ombudsman and managing director at The Motor Ombudsman, defended the decision, pointing out that case law - not TMO policy - sets the benchmark of a 10-year or 100,000-mile life expectancy for vehicles.

“All decisions are based on the evidence provided and our Codes of Practice,” said Fennell. “The Consumer Rights Act mandates durability as part of satisfactory quality. In this case, the vehicle’s infotainment failure fell short of reasonable durability expectations. A replacement was therefore awarded, as it was proportionate and fair under the circumstances.”

Fennell also clarified that TMO operates within the six-year legal limitation period and that the timing of the complaint - within five years and nine months - was compliant with legal standards.