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

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs L complained that Advantage Finance supplied her with a used 10-year-old car with 75,400 miles that had an EGR/emissions fault causing fumes to enter the cabin. She complained in September 2025, approximately two years after supply in August 2023. Advantage arranged an independent inspection which concluded the car conformed to contract at supply and offered a reduced payment plan. The ombudsman found that while a fault was confirmed, Mrs L failed to provide sufficient evidence that it was present or developing at the point of supply rather than resulting from wear and tear, damage, or failed repairs during her possession. The independent expert report was found persuasive, and the absence of contemporaneous evidence of faults shortly after supply, combined with the car's ability to cover 13,000 miles, supported the conclusion that the car was of satisfactory quality when supplied. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality, taking into account the car's age (10 years), mileage (75,400 miles), and price (£5,500). While a fault was confirmed, the ombudsman found the burden was on Mrs L to demonstrate the fault was present or developing at supply, not on Advantage to prove otherwise. The independent expert report from Expert S was found persuasive as it was written by a qualified expert with court credentials. The ombudsman noted that Mrs L's ability to drive 13,000 miles suggested the car was of satisfactory quality at supply. The lack of contemporaneous evidence of faults shortly after supply, combined with the absence of pre-supply servicing history and the possibility of wear and tear or damage during Mrs L's possession, meant there was insufficient evidence to establish the fault rendered the car unsatisfactory at the point of supply. The two-year delay in reporting the issue to Advantage was also significant.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website