Not upheld: quality of goods supplied / satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Close Brothers Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased a 12-year-old used car with approximately 90,000 miles through a conditional sale agreement with Close Brothers in March 2025. In August 2025, after covering approximately 8,000 miles, the timing belt failed causing extensive engine damage. Mr S complained that the car was not of satisfactory quality, but Close Brothers relied on an independent engineer report concluding the failure was age-related wear and tear. Mr S provided a conflicting mechanic report claiming the fault was present at supply. The ombudsman upheld Close Brothers' position, finding that the car's ability to travel 8,000 miles post-supply, combined with its age (12 years) and mileage (approaching 98,000 miles), demonstrated the timing belt failure was normal wear and tear rather than a pre-existing fault, and therefore the car 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. While faults within six months are presumed to have been present at supply unless the supplier proves otherwise, the independent engineer evidence demonstrated the timing belt could not have been faulty when supplied because the car successfully travelled 8,000 miles afterwards. The ombudsman found that a 12-year-old car with nearly 98,000 miles experiencing timing belt failure after 5 months of ownership, combined with no service history, represents normal age-related wear and tear rather than a pre-existing fault. The ombudsman rejected Mr S's mechanic report as it failed to account for the post-supply mileage and was inconsistent with the vehicle's ability to operate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website