Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / durability of vehicle components complaint against Secure Trust Bank Plc trading as Moneyway

Decision detail

Summary

Mr S purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with Moneyway in April 2025. The nine-year-old car with 81,969 miles initially had an oil leak and faulty track rod end, which were repaired by the dealership. Subsequently, in May 2025, the car displayed electrical fault codes and warning messages, and in August 2025, it broke down due to timing belt failure after Mr S had driven only 4,000 miles. Mr S complained that the car was not of satisfactory quality and sought to reject it. The ombudsman found that the May 2025 electrical issues were most likely caused by a failing 12v battery (a serviceable item at the end of its natural life) and the August 2025 timing belt failure was due to normal wear and tear, not faults present at supply. Therefore, the complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at the point of supply. While the car had initial faults that were repaired (the single chance at repair), the subsequent electrical issues in May 2025 were most likely caused by a failing 12v battery, a serviceable item that had reached the end of its natural life due to the car's age (over nine years). Similarly, the timing belt failure in August 2025 was attributed to normal wear and tear for a car of that age and mileage, not a fault present at supply. The ombudsman distinguished between faults and serviceable items that have reached the end of their natural life, concluding that a reasonable person would expect to replace such items sooner on a used car with high mileage. The independent engineer's report was given significant weight as it was based on an actual inspection of the car, whereas Mr S's alternative evidence was based on a different car and was provided without inspection of his vehicle.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website