Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Marsh Finance & Commercial Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S purchased a used 8-year-old car through hire purchase with MFCL in March 2025 for £10,950. Within 10 days, the engine developed a serious fault requiring replacement. MFCL upheld the complaint and offered repair or unwinding; Mrs S chose repair. However, during the 51-day repair period from April to May 2025, MFCL failed to provide a courtesy car, leaving Mrs S (who is disabled and relies on a vehicle for medical appointments) without transport. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality and that MFCL should refund the pro rata monthly payments for the repair period plus £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. While a reasonable person would have lower expectations for an 8-year-old used car with 84,248 miles, they would still expect it to be free from major defects and provide trouble-free motoring for some time and distance. Both parties agreed the engine had failed and MFCL accepted responsibility. Mrs S reasonably chose repair over unwinding the agreement. However, MFCL failed to provide a courtesy car during the 51-day repair period, leaving Mrs S without mobility despite her disability and medical needs. This failure to mitigate the impact of the defective goods warrants compensation.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website