Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against 247 Money Group Limited trading as 247Money

Decision detail

Summary

Miss W purchased a used car via hire purchase with 247Money in September 2021 for £3,495. The car subsequently developed faults including gearbox issues, tyre wear, and suspension problems, which Miss W attributed to an allegedly fraudulent or negligent MOT provided at supply. She sought to reject the car and later pursued voluntary termination, but faced an outstanding liability of £1,701.30. When she failed to make payments despite a 50% reduction offer and breathing space period, 247Money transferred the debt to a collection agency. Miss W complained to 247Money and subsequently to the FOS, claiming the car was of unsatisfactory quality and that she was forced into voluntary termination. The ombudsman found the faults were consistent with normal wear and tear for a seven-year-old vehicle, that voluntary termination was Miss W's own choice, and that the debt transfer was reasonable given her non-payment. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality. While the car had faults (tracking, gearbox, tyres, suspension, brakes), the ombudsman found these were likely due to normal wear and tear rather than defects present at supply. The car was seven years old with 59,578 miles when acquired, and Miss W travelled a further 12,000 miles before the September 2022 MOT failure. Tyres, suspension, and brakes are wear and tear items. The MOT passed at supply was not found to be fraudulent or negligently conducted based on available evidence. Regarding voluntary termination, the ombudsman found Miss W was informed of her options and consequences, with no evidence of pressure from 247Money. The debt transfer was reasonable given Miss W's non-payment despite a 50% reduction offer, multiple discussions, and a breathing space period.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website