Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / fitness for purpose complaint against BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES (GB) LIMITED trading as ALPHERA Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Miss A purchased a nearly-new car (4,985 miles, April 2022 registration) via hire purchase with Alphera in November 2022 for £75,410. In April 2025, she complained of recurring power loss, acceleration, and gear problems that had manifested around mid-2023 and persisted despite multiple repair attempts at manufacturer dealerships. Alphera declined to uphold the complaint, citing lack of evidence that faults existed at the point of sale, as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for complaints raised more than six months after purchase. The ombudsman upheld Alphera's position, finding that while faults were confirmed (sensor and ECU issues), the timing of their emergence (approximately one year after supply), the substantial mileage travelled (nearly 30,000 miles), and the absence of any diagnostic evidence showing root causes all indicated the faults likely developed during ownership rather than existing 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 given the description, price, and relevant circumstances. While the ombudsman accepted that faults existed (sensors, ECU, water ingress), the critical issue was whether these faults were present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence to establish this because: (1) no independent diagnostic report or detailed mechanical analysis was provided showing the root cause of failures; (2) the car operated without reported issues for approximately one year after supply; (3) a service at 19,930 miles noted no problems; (4) the car had travelled nearly 30,000 miles before issues were reported; and (5) the length of time and distance travelled before problems manifested suggested faults likely developed during ownership rather than existing at supply. The ombudsman rejected the argument that the dealership's offer to buy back the car constituted admission of inherent fault, finding this insufficient evidence on its own.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website