Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss B purchased a used car (37,500 miles, £10,390) via hire purchase agreement financed by Oodle in May 2025. Within two weeks, she reported battery issues and requested rejection. A manufacturer dealership inspection identified multiple defects (expired spare tyre, worn shock absorber, aircon radiator damage) requiring approximately £1,800 in repairs. Oodle rejected her complaint, relying on an MOT test passed two months later. Miss B subsequently sold the car to a third party as she could not afford payments on two vehicles. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality at point of sale under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and ordered Oodle to refund the deposit (minus proceeds already received), rental payments, MOT costs, pay interest, remove adverse credit information, and pay £150 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality and presumes faults identified within six months were present at point of sale unless the firm proves otherwise. The inspection report completed two weeks after purchase identified multiple defects requiring £1,800 in repairs. Given the car had only travelled 37,500 miles and Miss B had only possessed it for two weeks, a reasonable person would not expect such significant repair costs so soon. The ombudsman rejected Oodle's reliance on the MOT as the MOT's purpose is not to assess overall quality or determine if faults existed at point of sale. Oodle failed to arrange an independent inspection to rebut the presumption, and the ombudsman found it reasonable for Miss B to sell the car given Oodle's failure to act and her inability to afford two vehicles.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website