Veste

Not upheld: satisfactory quality and durability of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6113070 of 2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00. satisfactory quality and durability of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-6113070
Decision date2026-06-11T00:00:00+00:00
FirmMotoNovo Finance Limited
ProductMotor finance (PCP / HP)
Claim typesatisfactory quality and durability of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement
OutcomeNot upheld
RemedyNone. The complaint was not upheld. MotoNovo had already paid £125 for delay in responding.

Summary

Mr C purchased a used car (8.5 years old, 75,284 miles) under a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo in February 2025. In July 2025, approximately 8,400 miles later, the car developed a crankshaft bearing issue. MotoNovo arranged an independent inspection which concluded the fault was not present at supply based on the mileage covered. The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality standard and, finding no contradictory expert evidence, upheld the inspection's conclusion that the fault was not present or developing when the car was supplied, therefore rejecting the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality standard, considering the car's age, price, mileage and description. While accepting the car likely suffered a crankshaft bearing issue, the independent inspection evidence indicated this fault would not have been present or developing at supply given the 8,433 miles covered since purchase. In the absence of contradictory expert evidence, the ombudsman found the car was of satisfactory quality and durable when supplied, particularly given its age and mileage.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
MotoNovo Finance Limited, all decisions55945%
Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions18,52138%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website