Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mallard Leasing Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-4426339 of 2024-02-05T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Mallard Leasing Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-4426339 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2024-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Mallard Leasing Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Mallard Finance must: (1) arrange and pay for repair by manufacturer's dealer per their quote; (2) refund 10% of payments from 25 March 2023 to settlement date for limited use; (3) refund diagnosis cost of £119.40; (4) pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; (5) pay £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr D purchased a 14-year-old car via hire purchase with Mallard Finance in March 2023. Within 15 days, he reported misfiring and rough idling issues that persisted despite dealer repairs. After two months of back-and-forth disputes, a manufacturer's specialist dealer diagnosed a pre-existing wiring fault affecting injector four requiring loom replacement. Mallard Finance initially rejected the complaint based on an independent inspector's report finding the vehicle fit for purpose, but the ombudsman found the specialist dealer's more invasive diagnostic testing more persuasive. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality at purchase, and ordered Mallard Finance to pay for repairs, refund 10% of payments, refund diagnosis costs, pay interest, and provide £200 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that while three independent technical reports existed with differing conclusions, the manufacturer's specialist dealer report was most persuasive due to its more invasive inspection and specialist diagnostic equipment. All three reports identified wiring issues, and the specialist dealer's findings directly correlated with the misfiring problems Mr D reported from 25 March 2023, just 15 days after purchase. The ombudsman rejected Mallard Finance's argument that a main dealer would recommend unnecessary work on a 14-year-old vehicle, finding that the specialist dealer's deeper testing and invasive inspection provided more reliable evidence. The problem likely existed at point of purchase, making the car not of satisfactory quality.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Mallard Leasing Limited, all decisions | 38 | 58% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website