Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality / lack of durability complaint against Marsh Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6092875 of 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality / lack of durability complaint against Marsh Finance Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6092875 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Marsh Finance Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods not of satisfactory quality / lack of durability |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Marsh Finance must: (1) End the hire purchase agreement with no liability for monthly rentals after collection; (2) Collect the car without charge; (3) Refund advance payment of £1,300 (less any dealer contribution); (4) Reimburse pro rata monthly repayments from 29 May 2025 until agreement ends; (5) Reimburse £180 diagnostic test cost; (6) Pay £150 for distress and inconvenience; (7) Remove adverse credit file information. All monetary amounts (except distress payment) to accrue 8% simple yearly interest from date of original payment. |
Summary
Mrs H purchased a used car via hire purchase with Marsh Finance in September 2023. The car's gearbox, which had been reconditioned shortly before supply, failed in May 2024 after 3,000 miles and was repaired. The gearbox failed again in May 2025 after a further 5,000 miles, with diagnostics revealing extensive damage requiring a £4,800+ rebuild. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality due to lack of durability and that Mrs H was entitled to reject the goods after the single repair attempt failed. Marsh Finance was ordered to end the agreement, collect the car, refund the advance payment and pro rata repayments from May 2025, reimburse the diagnostic cost, and pay £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality, which includes durability. A reasonable person would not expect a reconditioned gearbox to fail within 3,000 miles of supply and again within 8,000 miles of supply. The car had one repair attempt in May 2024 under the 'single chance of repair' rule. When the gearbox failed again in May 2025, this constituted failure of the repair and meant the car was not of satisfactory quality at point of supply. Therefore, Mrs H is entitled to reject the goods.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Marsh Finance Limited, all decisions | 42 | 67% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website