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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo Finance Limited in April 2023 for £7,995. The car was over nine years old with 69,471 miles. Over the following months, Mr B reported various issues including turbo, gearbox, brakes, battery and diesel tank problems, and the car failed its MOT tests in April 2024 and September 2025, primarily for Engine Management Lights (EML) not working. Mr B obtained an independent inspection in October 2024 which found multiple faults and concluded the car was not roadworthy or fit for purpose. Mr B complained to MotoNovo that the car was not of satisfactory quality at the point of supply, but MotoNovo maintained there was insufficient evidence the faults were present at supply. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that while faults existed, the earliest documented report of the main fault (EML) was approximately one year after supply, and on balance the faults were attributable to wear and tear rather than defects present at the point of supply.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality. For a used car that is over nine years old with significant mileage, it is reasonable to expect parts may have suffered substantial wear and tear. The critical question was whether faults were present or developing at the point of supply. The ombudsman found that the earliest documented report of the EML fault was in April 2024, approximately one year after supply and after 10,000+ miles of use. Despite Mr B raising other issues in the months prior to April 2024, he did not report the EML as a concern, which the ombudsman found significant. The inspection report was considered inconclusive and appeared to have been amended following Mr B's assertions. The 18-month gap between supply and inspection, combined with 17,000+ miles covered, was considered significant in determining whether faults were present at supply. The ombudsman concluded on balance that the faults were due to wear and tear following Mr B's use, not defects present at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website