Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Scott Motor Finance Ltd
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5423503 of 2026-01-23T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Scott Motor Finance Ltd. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5423503 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-01-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Scott Motor Finance Ltd |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Scott Motor Finance Ltd must: (1) refund repair costs totalling £1,654.20 (£108 + £346.20 + £1,200); (2) refund 10% of monthly payments from February 2024 to settlement date to reflect impaired use; (3) pay 8% simple yearly interest on all refunded amounts from the date Miss N paid them until settlement; (4) pay £300 for distress and inconvenience; (5) remove any adverse credit file information relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Miss N purchased a used 10-year-old Fiat via hire purchase with Scott Motor Finance Ltd in February 2024 for £6,774. Within the first week, the car developed clutch problems requiring repair. Over the following four months, Miss N incurred additional repair costs of £346.20 for alternator replacement and £1,200 for gearbox and clutch repairs, and identified further faults. Miss N repeatedly requested to reject the car but was directed between the broker and lender without receiving active assistance. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply, as the faults were likely present or developing at that time, and Scott Motor failed to prove otherwise by not commissioning an independent inspection. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Scott Motor to refund repair costs, 10% of monthly payments, pay interest and £300 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that multiple faults occurring within the first four months of supply (clutch, alternator, gearbox mount, exhaust) indicated the car was not of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, when faults occur within six months of supply, the onus is on the business to prove the issues were neither present nor developing at sale. Scott Motor failed to discharge this burden by commissioning an independent inspection report. The ombudsman rejected Scott Motor's reliance on the pre-supply MOT as evidence, noting that MOT tests focus on safety and roadworthiness rather than mechanical condition and do not check every component. The ombudsman also considered durability standards for components (alternators typically last 80,000-150,000 miles; clutches 60,000-80,000 miles) and found it unreasonable that these components failed so soon on a car with relatively low mileage. Scott Motor's failure to take an active role in resolving the issues and its direction of Miss N to distant dealerships or the broker was found to be unfair.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Scott Motor Finance Ltd, all decisions | 2 | 100% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,153 | 37% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,455 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website