Upheld: irresponsible lending / goods of unsatisfactory quality complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6097548 of 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00. irresponsible lending / goods of unsatisfactory quality complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6097548 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | irresponsible lending / goods of unsatisfactory quality |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Northridge must: (1) end the agreement and collect the car without charging for collection; (2) refund the £348 advance payment; (3) refund 10% of monthly payments made from start of agreement to settlement date (excluding already refunded payment); (4) apply 8% simple interest per annum to refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; (5) remove adverse credit file information and mark agreement as settled in full; (6) pay £150 additional compensation for distress and inconvenience (total compensation £250 including £100 already paid). |
Summary
Mrs D purchased a 7-year-old used car with 53,673 miles under a hire purchase agreement with Northridge Finance for £11,000. Within weeks, she reported multiple faults including handbrake warning lights, tyre pressure loss, and gearbox juddering. The dealership attempted repairs between September 2024 and February 2025, including replacing the start/stop battery, tyres, and performing a gearbox software update. One week after the car was returned, Mrs D reported the handbrake and gearbox problems persisting. Although an independent inspection in May 2025 and an MOT found no faults, Mrs D provided multiple videos showing the same intermittent faults occurring. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was of unsatisfactory quality and that Mrs D had the right to reject it, ordering Northridge to collect the car, refund the deposit and 10% of payments with interest, and pay £150 additional compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies goods must be of satisfactory quality. Faults reported within six months are presumed present at supply unless evidence suggests otherwise. Although the dealership and independent engineer found no faults after repairs, the intermittent nature of the problems meant they would not necessarily present during testing. Mrs D provided consistent testimony and clear video evidence showing the same faults persisting after repair attempts. The ombudsman found on balance of probabilities that the car still had faults affecting critical components (handbrake and gearbox), the repair failed, and the car was therefore of unsatisfactory quality. As the dealership had more than one chance to repair, Mrs D has the right to reject under section 24(5) of the CRA.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance, all decisions | 11 | 46% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website