Mr Brigatti complains about VOSA’s handling of reports he made to them about a bonnet failure/safety defect on his Renault Clio II. He complains that VOSA did not carry out formal inspections of any vehicles with the fault. Mr Brigatti does not consider that VOSA carried out a transparent or impartial investigation in the fault. He considers that a safety recall should have been enforced by VOSA. Mr Brigatti would like VOSA to carry out an impartial, independent and comprehensive investigation using scientific and technical engineers, mechanics and experts who can advise why the fault has happened. Mr Brigatti would like the report of such an investigation to be openly available and not owned by Renault. Mr Brigatti would also like to see a review of the safety assessment procedures at VOSA.

It may be helpful if I explain about the Ombudsman’s remit. The Ombudsman can, in principle, investigate the administrative actions of VOSA. The Ombudsman only usually investigates a complaint where it appears that there are grounds for believing the body’s actions to have been maladministrative; that this has resulted in an injustice to the aggrieve which is yet to be remedied; and that an investigation by this office is likely to achieve a satisfactory outcome.

We have decided not to investigate Mr Brigatti’s complaint as it does not appear that VOSA have acted unreasonably. VOSA have explained that it is not within their remit to investigate defects themselves and that it is their responsibility to oversee the investigation by the manufacturer. The powers to enforce the safety standards of the automotive industry come from the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the UK Cde of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects. VOSA only have the remit to formally pursue defects which are deemed to be part of the design or construction of a vehicle. VOSA’s UK Code of Practice on Vehicle Safety Defects places primary responsibility for identification of evidence of a safety defect with the vehicle manufacturer.

VOSA did oversee an investigation by Renault. The investigation found that the fault was not caused by a safety defect in the design or construction of the bonnet catch but was caused by a lack of the required maintenance of the part; or the failure to close the bonnet correctly; or a combination of the two factors. VOSA have explained what action they took to remedy the fault. VOSA worked with Renault to gain the latest vehicle keeper information from the DVLA and in 2007 Renault updated the owners’ manual and the service plans held at dealerships to remind owners and technicians of the maintenance schedule for bonnet locks and latches. VOSA also said that in 2007 and 2008 Renault had issued customer mailing offering to check, clean and lubricate bonnet catches and replace them if there was significant corrosion. It appears that VOSA acted reasonably, within their remit, and have provided reasonable explanations to Mr Brigatti about their role.

I appreciated that Mr Brigatti may be disappointed with our decision. However, I trust that I have clearly explained the reasons for it. I have sent a copy of this letter to Mr Brigatti.”