Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods supplied under hire purchase agreement complaint against Toyota Financial Services (UK) Plc, trading as Redline Finance

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a used car (6.5 years old, 67,356 miles) through a hire purchase agreement with Redline Finance in June 2023. The turbo failed shortly after supply and was repaired; it failed again and Mr B accepted a second repair rather than rejecting the car. Subsequently, the starter motor failed in February 2024 and the head gasket failed in April 2025. Mr B complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman found that while the turbo was not sufficiently durable and made the car unsatisfactory at supply, Mr B's acceptance of repair meant Redline had fulfilled its obligations. The later failures of the starter motor and head gasket were not shown to be present at supply and were likely due to wear and tear or lack of maintenance. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at supply and implies goods must conform to contract within the first six months. For the turbo failure occurring within six months, the fault was presumed present at supply, making the car unsatisfactory. However, Mr B accepted repair, which was successful as evidenced by the car passing an MOT without emissions issues. For the starter motor failure occurring after six months, Mr B bore the burden of proving the fault was present at supply, which he failed to do. For the head gasket failure, the ombudsman found it occurred at approximately 84,000 miles after almost two years of use, which is not unexpected for this component and does not indicate it was failing at supply. The ombudsman noted Mr B failed to maintain the wet belt according to manufacturer recommendations, which likely contributed to the failure. The welding in the boot area most likely resulted from corrosion, not accident damage, and does not indicate undisclosed defects.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website