Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under conditional sale agreement complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Mr D purchased a 9-year-old car with 90,000 miles under a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in March 2024 for £12,665. He experienced various faults including engine warning lights, anti-roll bar issues, and oil sensor problems within the first months, which were repaired at no cost. Over a year later, the vehicle developed turbocharger failure and other engine issues. Mr D complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply. An independent inspection concluded that while faults were present, they would not have been present or developing at the point of sale, having developed after 17,807 additional miles of use. The ombudsman upheld Moneybarn's position, finding that the early faults were repaired successfully within the first six months (satisfying the single chance of repair), and the later turbocharger failure was consistent with normal wear and deterioration rather than a defect present at supply.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. For a 9-year-old car with 90,000 miles at a lower price point, a reasonable person would expect some wear and tear and earlier need for repairs. While some faults (anti-roll bar link, oil sensor) were likely present or developing at supply, these were repaired successfully at no cost to Mr D within the first six months, satisfying his single chance of repair rights. The later turbocharger failure, occurring after 17,807 additional miles, was consistent with normal wear and deterioration rather than a defect present at supply, as supported by the independent engineer's findings. The diesel particulate filter warning light was attributed to a serviceable component requiring routine maintenance rather than an inherent defect. No causal link was established between early warning lights and the later turbocharger failure.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website