Partially upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Specialist Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss G purchased a used car under a hire purchase agreement with SMF in October 2024. The car developed a timing chain fault in December 2024, requiring two months of repairs during which Miss G had no access to the vehicle. Further faults emerged in August 2025, which SMF argued were not linked to the original issue and therefore not their responsibility. The ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding the timing chain fault and the two-month period without the car, as this fault was presumed present at supply under consumer rights law. However, the August 2025 faults were found to have occurred after supply and were not linked to the original issue, so the complaint was not upheld for these. SMF was directed to restructure the agreement, waive the two months of deferred payments, remove adverse credit file entries, and pay £100 compensation.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at supply and implies that faults identified within six months were present at supply unless the supplier proves otherwise. The timing chain fault manifested within six months and is presumed to have been present at supply, making the car of unsatisfactory quality. However, the August 2025 faults occurred more than six months after supply, and the independent engineer's report confirmed these were not linked to the timing chain issue and were unlikely to have been present at supply given the mileage travelled. The ombudsman found that the DPF/Ad Blue bypass more likely occurred after supply based on the recent MOT passing without detecting such issues. Compensation was awarded for the two-month period when Miss G was without the car due to the unsatisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website