Not upheld: quality of goods supplied under conditional sale agreement; alleged breach of satisfactory quality implied term complaint against Close Brothers Limited trading as Close Brothers Motor

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased a used car through a conditional sale agreement with CBL in July 2022 for £17,999. Within weeks, the car developed multiple faults including a coolant leak, DPF issues, and later wiring and sensor problems, with Mr S claiming £28,000 in losses. Mr S argued these faults were present at supply and sought reimbursement of repair costs, waiver of the outstanding balance, and compensation. CBL disputed this, relying on an independent vehicle inspection specialist's report concluding there was insufficient technical evidence that faults existed at point of supply. The ombudsman upheld CBL's position, finding the independent specialist's assessment more persuasive than the third-party engineer's opinion and concluding the vehicle was of satisfactory quality when supplied.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality. For a used car with nearly 110,000 miles, a reasonable person would expect lower quality standards than a new vehicle and increased likelihood of unforeseen problems. While both parties provided evidence of faults, the key dispute was whether faults existed at point of supply. The ombudsman placed significant weight on the independent vehicle inspection specialist's assessment, which concluded there was no technical proof that faults were present or developing at supply, despite accepting the third-party engineer's explanation was possible. The ombudsman found the independent specialist's position more persuasive due to their impartiality and specialist knowledge.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website