Partially upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Miss R purchased a four-year-old used car via conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in May 2025 for £22,248. She complained about the quality of the car, citing condensation in the rear light, damage to the driver's seat, and a warranty that was three months rather than the three years she believed she had agreed to. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the condensation in the rear light, which was a longstanding fault noted in the previous MOT and represents a defect making the car not of satisfactory quality. The complaint regarding seat damage was rejected as cosmetic wear and tear appropriate to the vehicle's age and mileage. The warranty complaint was rejected as it was not part of the finance agreement. Moneybarn was directed to repair the condensation defect and pay £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods supplied under a conditional sale agreement must be of satisfactory quality. A reasonable person would consider satisfactory quality by reference to the description, price, age and mileage of the vehicle. While a four-year-old car with 32,000 miles would be expected to have some wear and tear, water ingress (even minor) can cause significant problems if not remedied and represents a defect beyond normal wear and tear. The condensation in the rear light was a longstanding fault noted in the previous MOT and therefore makes the car not of satisfactory quality. The seat damage is cosmetic wear and tear consistent with a vehicle of this age and prior usage, reflected in the price paid. The warranty issue falls outside Moneybarn's responsibility as it was not part of the finance agreement.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website