Upheld: mis-selling and breach of satisfactory quality complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6041998 of 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00. mis-selling and breach of satisfactory quality complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6041998 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | mis-selling and breach of satisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund all monthly repayments made to settlement date whilst retaining one monthly repayment for every 1,000 miles travelled; refund £360 for independent inspection; pay 8% simple yearly interest on refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay £200 for distress and inconvenience; remove adverse credit file information relating to the agreement. |
Summary
Mr C acquired a nine-year-old used car through a hire purchase agreement with Oodle in October 2024 for £11,595. The car had been in an accident and repaired to a poor standard, which was not disclosed to Mr C. After experiencing problems in February 2025 and receiving inspection reports confirming the accident history and poor repairs in July 2025, Mr C stopped using the car and sold it in September 2025. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality and had been mis-sold. Oodle was ordered to refund monthly repayments (retaining one payment per 1,000 miles), refund inspection costs, pay interest and £200 compensation, and remove adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality, considering age, mileage, and history. The car was not of satisfactory quality as it had been in an accident with poor repairs, undisclosed to Mr C. Although repair is a remedy under the CRA, rejection is also available and appropriate here given the mis-sale and realistic chance of serious continuing problems. Oodle had opportunity to arrange proper repairs but failed to act adequately. Mr C should pay for use of the car through retention of one monthly payment per 1,000 miles travelled.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 459 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 18,521 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website