Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Conister Bank Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5753574 of 2025-08-14T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against Conister Bank Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5753574 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-08-14T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Conister Bank Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CBL must: cancel the agreement with nothing further to pay; collect the car from the dealer at no cost to Miss S; refund all payments from February 2025 to date of settlement; refund car insurance and road tax for the period from February 2025 to date of settlement upon provision of proof; pay 8% interest from date of payment to date of settlement on all refunded amounts; deduct alloy wheel refurbishment cost from the deposit; pay Miss S £150 compensation; and remove any adverse information from Miss S's credit file. |
Summary
Miss S purchased a car via hire purchase agreement with CBL on 13 November 2024 and reported faults within two weeks, including SOS emergency call messages, brake concerns, and infotainment system failures. She chose to reject the car within 30 days on 6 December 2024, but CBL refused to unwind the agreement, claiming a dealership report showed no active faults. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding that Miss S's testimony and email evidence demonstrated faults were present at delivery, and that CBL failed to conduct an independent inspection despite having the opportunity. The ombudsman ordered CBL to cancel the agreement, refund payments from February 2025 onwards, refund insurance and road tax, pay 8% interest, pay £150 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that Miss S reported faults within two weeks of acquiring the car, specifically relating to the infotainment system (SOS emergency call, SatNav, and CarPlay disconnections). Although the faults were intermittent and could not always be replicated during testing, the ombudsman found Miss S's testimony reliable and accepted that these faults were likely present or developing at the point of delivery. The ombudsman noted that CBL had the burden of proving the car conformed to the contract when faults were reported within 30 days, and CBL failed to conduct an independent inspection despite having the opportunity to do so. The ombudsman rejected CBL's arguments that the 2,000 miles driven indicated no safety concern, noting that Miss S had reported the faults after 10 days and pursued the matter through B. The ombudsman concluded it was fair and reasonable to allow Miss S to reject the car.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Conister Bank Limited, all decisions | 21 | 29% |
| 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