Upheld: supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; inadequate compensation for loss of use complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6135760 of 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00. supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; inadequate compensation for loss of use complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6135760 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-23T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | supply of goods of unsatisfactory quality; inadequate compensation for loss of use |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund all monthly payments pro rata for 21 April 2025 to 16 June 2025; refund 20% of monthly payments pro rata for 24 June 2025 to 30 July 2025; pay 8% simple yearly interest on refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay additional £100 distress and inconvenience compensation (total £250). |
Summary
Mr Y purchased a used car via hire purchase with Northridge in April 2025. The car developed a gearbox fault within weeks, requiring complete replacement. After repairs were delayed due to parts availability and completed in late July 2025, Mr Y requested to reject the car but was refused. The ombudsman found the car was of unsatisfactory quality but denied the right to reject as repairs were a fair remedy. However, the ombudsman upheld the complaint regarding inadequate compensation, ordering refunds for the period without use (21 April to 16 June 2025) and a partial refund for the period with an inadequate courtesy car (24 June to 30 July 2025), plus increased distress and inconvenience compensation from £150 to £250.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found the car was of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 due to the gearbox fault. However, the right to reject was lost because Mr Y initially accepted repairs and only requested rejection after delays, which were not excessive and were due to parts availability rather than poor service. Repair was a fair remedy under the CRA. However, Northridge should have provided better compensation for the period without use (21 April to 16 June 2025) and the period with an inadequate courtesy car (24 June to 30 July 2025).
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance, all decisions | 12 | 42% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website