A man’s bid to have a major car manufacturer compensate him over deteriorating paintwork seven years after he purchased it has been dismissed.
Anthony Ross, who purchased the new Hyundai i20 from Sunshine Coast car dealership Sunco Motors in 2014, filed a dispute with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2023 after paint defects emerged in 2021.
The QCAT decision, delivered this year, said Mr Ross described the problem as commencing with a fleck of paint missing from the bonnet and developing into a larger patch, and ‘bubbling’ and peeling of paint elsewhere on the vehicle.
He sought from the respondent, Hyundai Motor Vehicle Company Australia Pty Ltd, either a full respray estimated at $15,000, a new replacement vehicle or reimbursement of the car’s original $13,490 price.
Mr Ross argued the paint issue was a hidden defect and that the vehicle failed to meet the required standard of “acceptable quality” under consumer protection laws.
“At the hearing of this application, Mr Ross maintained that the quality of the paintwork on the vehicle was such that it failed to satisfy the (statutory) guarantee of acceptable quality and that he should be compensated for that failure,” the decision by QCAT member John Davies stated.
“Mr Ross sought to bolster this contention by submitting, in his statement of evidence, details of what he asserted was a widespread problem with Hyundai vehicles by referencing a Facebook page on this topic.”
Want more free local news? Follow Sunshine Coast News on Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram, and sign up for our FREE daily news email.
In response, Hyundai argued that it provided a three-year paintwork warranty that was adequate time for any paint problems with the vehicle to be evident.
“On Mr Ross’ own evidence, the paint problem became apparent after about seven-and-a-half years, (so) Hyundai submits it was well beyond a time within which an acceptable quality guarantee should operate,” the documents stated.
The decision noted that the flaking and bubbling of the paintwork was not challenged by Hyundai, and the issue for determination was whether the car maker had failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
“The passage of time after the expiration of the paintwork warranty should, I consider, signal to a reasonable consumer the understanding that the passage of time after the expiration of the paint warranty diminishes any continuing responsibility by the manufacturer,” it said.
“Here, the time that had elapsed since the vehicle was new was over seven years. That is a period of over four years after the expiration of Hyundai’s paint warranty.
“I note that there was no evidence from expert witnesses regarding the cause or causes of the delamination of the paint on the vehicle. Due to the absence of such evidence, I am unable to find, on the evidence before me, that the vehicle suffered from a hidden defect so as to constitute non-compliance by Hyundai with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
“As a consequence, Mr Ross’ application fails and is dismissed.”
