Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Marsh Finance & Commercial Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs S purchased a 7-year-old used car via hire purchase from Marsh Finance & Commercial Ltd in January 2024 for approximately £9,000. She reported issues shortly after supply, and repairs were carried out by the selling dealer in March and April 2024. After driving the car for over 13,000 miles without reported problems, Mrs S reported a high-pressure fuel pump fault in March 2025 and subsequently paid approximately £1,300 for repairs. Marsh commissioned an independent inspection which found no clear evidence the faults were present at supply or due to failed repairs, attributing issues to maintenance and wear. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the car was not of satisfactory quality at the point of supply and upheld Marsh's decision not to take further action, noting that Mrs S bore the burden of proving the car was defective at supply.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of satisfactory quality, which requires goods to meet the standard a reasonable person would consider satisfactory taking into account description, price, age, mileage, and history. For a 7-year-old car with 28,200 miles at £9,000, different expectations apply than for a new car. The ombudsman found that while faults clearly existed, the cause had not been established. The key issue was whether faults were present at supply or resulted from failed repairs. The ombudsman noted that Mrs S drove the car 13,000 miles after repairs without issues, it passed an MOT with no advisories, and a third-party garage serviced it. The independent expert report, despite Mrs S's disputes, provided no clear evidence of inherent defects or failed repairs. The ombudsman found the burden of proof lay with Mrs S to demonstrate the car was not of satisfactory quality, and the inconclusive expert evidence, time elapsed, and distance covered made it impossible to conclude on balance of probabilities that the car was defective at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website