Not upheld: quality of goods and misrepresentation complaint against N.I.I.B. Group Limited trading as Northridge Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr C purchased a used car on hire purchase from Northridge Finance in May 2025 and complained that Android Auto and remote functionalities were misrepresented as freely available when behind a paywall, that one key was supplied without its casing, and that the car had charging defects. Northridge declined to uphold the complaint, citing insufficient evidence of faults. The ombudsman found that Mr C had not provided sufficient independent evidence of charging faults or that Android Auto was completely blocked rather than incompatible with his device, that Northridge was not responsible for Dealer B's representations (as Broker D was Northridge's agent), and that the damaged key did not render a three-year-old car of unsatisfactory quality. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that Mr C had not provided sufficient independent evidence of a fault with the car's charging capability or that Android Auto was completely blocked by a paywall rather than being incompatible with his device. The ombudsman noted that Northridge was not responsible for representations made by Dealer B, as Broker D was Northridge's agent under section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and there was no compelling evidence that Broker D had misled Mr C. The damaged key casing, in the context of a three-year-old second-hand car, did not render the car of unsatisfactory quality. Without sufficient evidence of faults making the car unsatisfactory quality, Northridge had not acted unreasonably.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website