Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under conditional sale agreement complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED (trading as Moneybarn)

Decision detail

Summary

Ms P complained that a used car supplied to her by Moneybarn under a conditional sale agreement in August 2025 was of unsatisfactory quality, citing issues including warning lights, creaking sounds, and faults that would fail an MOT. She requested rejection within 30 days. Moneybarn commissioned an independent inspection which found no faults present or developing at point of supply, though historic fault codes were noted. The ombudsman upheld Moneybarn's position, finding the independent inspection to be persuasive evidence that the car met satisfactory quality standards given its age, mileage, and price, and that subsequent repairs identified were consistent with wear and tear rather than pre-existing defects.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality test, considering the car's age, mileage, and price. The independent inspection was deemed the most persuasive evidence, conducted by a qualified motor technician with clear mechanical reasoning. Fault codes alone do not confirm mechanical defects. The car's passage of MOT tests before and during Ms P's ownership, combined with the independent inspection finding no faults present at point of supply, demonstrated satisfactory quality. Repairs identified in November 2025 were consistent with wear and tear on a used vehicle and were not present or developing at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website