An Audi owner has failed to get a dealership to refund her for the car after water started leaking through its roof.
Kim Smith bought the Audi Q3 brand new in 2020 for $65,000, according to a recently released decision of the New Zealand Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal.
She bought it from Quattro Motors Ltd, trading as Giltrap Audi, and it was serviced exclusively by them over the next five years.
In 2025, Smith discovered water leaking through the car’s roof, through the roof lining and interior light fittings, tracking down the door pillars, and saturating the car’s carpeting.
On July 29, she formally attempted to reject the car under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA), but the dealership refused to accept her rejection, saying the car had performed satisfactorily for five years.
Smith has argued her statutory rejection rights do not expire simply due to vehicle age or prior satisfactory performance, and noted the warranty was valid until July 31 that year.
She took the matter to the tribunal, seeking an order upholding her rejection of the car and refunding her part or whole of what she’d paid.
“Ms Smith complains that the defect has persisted despite two formal repair attempts by the respondent,” adjudicator David Jackson said in the tribunal decision.
Quattro Motors, referred to in the decision as the “trader”, carried out the two repairs but the leaking resumed shortly after each one, which Smith said showed their repairs were ineffective.
The trader told the tribunal that while no “definitive defect” had been identified, the job card for the repair was created within the warranty period, meaning the repair order remains active in good faith. This allowed for the possibility of warranty coverage despite the expiration date.
They reported that “sunroof seals, drain and body seals were tested extensively and no further issues were found. Water testing was conducted using high-pressure methods and over extended periods, including during heavy rainfall. At no point was the trader able to replicate or confirm the presence of water ingress”.
The car was reassembled after the tests and no further issues were found.
The trader said all repairs and diagnostics were done in line with Audi’s technical standards and service protocols.
“If the tribunal finds there is a leak, then the trader says it has not had a reasonable opportunity to assess and remedy any issues before a rejection is deemed appropriate. It wants to conduct a full and thorough inspection of the vehicle, investigate not only the door handle issue complained of but further investigate the reported water ingress, and determine and carry out a permanent repair,” Jackson said.
The tribunal’s assessor said the fault was a common one and there was sufficient evidence the leak did exist. The manufacturer has published a bulletin about the leak, and “how to repair it is highly probative”.
But a reasonable consumer had to have “realistic expectations” of the quality and durability of a vehicle of this price, age, and mileage - 63,000km - and should understand the car would have wear and tear consistent with that, Jackson said.
A reasonable consumer should also understand the supplier’s obligations under the CGA were finite and, at some point, the risk of the vehicle developing defects must transfer from the supplier to the buyer.
Jackson found a reasonable consumer would not consider it acceptable that a car bought new in 2020 would experience leaks within five years of ownership.
“Other mechanical or electrical system components may fail for various reasons during that period but not weathertightness.”
Jackson found the vehicle breached the guarantee of acceptable quality for its water leaks, but said the trader hadn’t had sufficient time to investigate, diagnose, and repair the defect.
“More time is needed. There is a leak, the trader needs to find its source and fix it,” he said.
The trader has 20 working days from the date of the decision to find and fix the leak.
“Ms Smith will be disappointed by this outcome I suspect. All is not lost; if the repairs fail or the leak returns in some other way, then she may return to the tribunal and her argument regarding failure to repair will be on stronger ground and is likely to be entertained and rejection ordered.”
Melissa Nightingale is a Wellington-based reporter who covers crime, justice and news in the capital. She joined the Herald in 2016 and has worked as a journalist for 12 years.