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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C purchased a used car under a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo Finance Limited in January 2025 for £37,199. Several months after supply, he discovered cosmetic defects including peeling paintwork lacquer and evidence of previous repair work, and requested rejection of the car. An independent engineer confirmed the paintwork defects were below manufacturer standards but found no structural damage and concluded the car was fit for purpose. MotoNovo upheld the complaint and offered to repair the defective paintwork, which was subsequently completed. The Ombudsman found the car was of unsatisfactory quality due to the paintwork defects but determined that the repair remedy was appropriate and proportionate, rejecting Mr C's request for rejection of the agreement.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The Ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard of satisfactory quality, considering the car's age (approaching two years), mileage (25,652 miles), and price (£37,199). While the defective paintwork with peeling lacquer and orange peel effect rendered the car of unsatisfactory quality at point of supply, the Ombudsman found that MotoNovo's offer to repair this defect was an appropriate remedy. The repair had been completed by the time of the decision, effectively accepting the remedy. Other defects identified were either consistent with normal wear and tear, within manufacturing tolerances, or production variations. The Ombudsman rejected the claim that the dealership had misrepresented the car's condition, noting the advert did not claim the car was in perfect condition and that minor cosmetic repairs on a used car would not be unusual or unexpected.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website