Upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under consumer credit contract; failure to ensure goods meet satisfactory quality standards complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6144540 of 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under consumer credit contract; failure to ensure goods meet satisfactory quality standards complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6144540 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-30T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Oodle Financial Services Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under consumer credit contract; failure to ensure goods meet satisfactory quality standards |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Oodle Financial Services Limited instructed to: (1) Arrange for repairs to be carried out to the faults identified in the November 2025 diagnostics at no further cost to Miss R, with both parties to cooperate and find a different garage if necessary with reasonable repair costs; (2) Pay Miss R £250 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. |
Summary
Miss R purchased a used car via hire purchase agreement with Oodle in March 2025. Shortly after acquisition, the car developed faults with tyres, brakes, and brake calliper. The supplying dealership offered to repair the car using non-OEM parts, which Miss R and the local garage refused, believing them to be poor quality. Miss R complained to Oodle requesting to reject the car, but Oodle directed her to continue with repairs. The ombudsman found the car was supplied of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but determined that repair was a fair resolution as Miss R had agreed to repairs and the supplied components were not unsafe. Oodle was instructed to arrange repairs at no cost to Miss R and pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was supplied of unsatisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as faults with tyres, brakes, and brake calliper presented shortly after acquisition and were likely present at point of supply. Although Miss R had agreed to repairs by contacting the dealership to discuss repair options, this did not waive her right to reject the car. However, the ombudsman determined that repair was a fair and reasonable resolution, as the supplying dealership was not obligated to supply brand-new or manufacturer components and there was no indication the supplied components were unsafe or unable to repair the fault. The ombudsman ordered repair at no cost to Miss R and compensation for distress and inconvenience.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Oodle Financial Services Limited, all decisions | 453 | 36% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website