Not upheld: misrepresentation and unsatisfactory quality of goods complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr J purchased a used plug-in hybrid car under a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo Finance Limited in May 2025 and subsequently complained that the car was misrepresented as a self-charging hybrid and was of unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman found no misrepresentation, as the advert clearly indicated the car was a hybrid with a charging flap, Mr J was advised during a pre-sale call that it was a PHEV, and his own email of 14 May 2025 confirmed his awareness of this fact. Regarding quality, while Mr J reported a fault within 30 days, an independent engineer's inspection six months later revealed that the auxiliary battery fault was due to age-related wear and deterioration occurring after supply, not present or developing at the point of supply. The complaint was not upheld, and no remedy was ordered.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to establish MotoNovo's liability for the dealership's representations. Regarding misrepresentation, the ombudsman found no false statement of fact: the advert did not claim the car was a self-charging hybrid, the charging flap would have been visible upon inspection, and Mr J's own email of 14 May 2025 confirmed he was aware the car was a PHEV before purchase. Regarding satisfactory quality, the ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, noting that while faults must be assumed present if identified within six months, the independent engineer's report clearly established the auxiliary battery fault was due to age-related wear and deterioration occurring after supply, not present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman also noted Mr J likely continued using the car despite claiming it was unsafe, as evidenced by the 6,700 miles travelled between supply and the inspection.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website