Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEASYS UK LTD
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6024672 of 2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEASYS UK LTD. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6024672 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | LEASYS UK LTD |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Leasys must: (1) end the finance agreement with no liability for rentals after collection; (2) take back the car without collection charges; (3) reimburse pro rata unused portion of initial rental (£1,105.72); (4) reimburse 20% of rentals from 31 July 2025 to return date; (5) pay £200 for distress and inconvenience; (6) remove adverse credit file information. All amounts to accrue 8% simple yearly interest from payment to reimbursement. |
Summary
Mr T acquired a new electric car under a hire agreement from Leasys in July 2024 for £50,895. The car developed multiple faults including a failure to start by July 2025 and was off the road for several months awaiting repair. Leasys denied Mr T's right to reject the car and offered only 20% reimbursement of payments and £200 compensation. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality and the repair time was unreasonable, entitling Mr T to reject it. Leasys was ordered to end the finance agreement, take back the car, reimburse rental payments and the initial deposit, and pay £200 compensation plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
A reasonable person would expect a brand new car worth over £50,000 to be fault-free and provide trouble-free motoring for a significant period. The car's failure to start within one year demonstrates it was not of satisfactory quality and lacked durability. Even if the September 2024 work was only a recall inspection rather than a repair, the car's failure in July 2025 followed by several months of waiting for repair constitutes an unreasonable time under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Therefore, Mr T had the right to reject the car, which Leasys unfairly denied.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| LEASYS UK LTD, all decisions | 31 | 47% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website