Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEASYS UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-5873080 of 2025-12-09T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEASYS UK LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-5873080 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2025-12-09T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | LEASYS UK LTD |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. End hire agreement and collect car at no cost to Mr F. 2. Refund payments made from 29 April 2024 (breakdown date) to collection date, calculated as one twenty-fourth of £8,385.36 per month. 3. Pay 8% simple interest annually on refunded amounts from date of each payment to settlement. 4. Pay £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr F leased a new car from Leasys in April 2024 under a 24-month hire agreement. The car broke down within two weeks with only 343 miles on the odometer. After being advised that repair parts could take months to order, Mr F requested rejection in June 2024, but Leasys refused and only offered a £100 refund. The ombudsman found that Mr F's rejection request was valid and timely under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as he had requested repair within 30 days (suspending the 30-day rejection period). Since Leasys could not demonstrate the repair would be completed within a reasonable time, it should have accepted the rejection. The ombudsman upheld the complaint and ordered Leasys to end the agreement, refund all payments from the breakdown date to collection, pay 8% interest, and pay £500 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that a new car should be free from even minor defects and that Mr F had requested repair within 30 days, which suspended the 30-day rejection period under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. When Mr F requested rejection in June 2024, he was within the extended time limit. Leasys should have accepted the rejection because it could not demonstrate the repair would be completed within a reasonable time, particularly given the four-month actual repair period. The ombudsman rejected the initial provisional decision approach and instead found Mr F should be refunded for the entire period from breakdown to collection, as Leasys failed to accept a valid rejection request.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| LEASYS UK LTD, all decisions | 30 | 45% |
| 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