Not upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality - motor finance complaint against Moneybarn No.1 Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G purchased a used car under a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in January 2023 for £11,299. The car, nearly four years old with 28,355 miles, required a cam-belt replacement in April 2024 at approximately 38,000 miles. Mrs G complained that the car was not of satisfactory quality, citing the early failure and a manufacturer compensation scheme for premature wet timing belt degradation. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing defect, noting the car had passed MOT tests before and after supply and that Mrs G had not complained during the 15 months between supply and repair despite multiple interactions with Moneybarn. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the satisfactory quality test, considering the car's age (nearly four years), mileage (28,355 miles), and price (£11,299). The car had passed MOT tests before supply and shortly after. Although the cam-belt failed at approximately 38,000 miles (about 10,000 miles after supply), the ombudsman found that Mrs G bore the responsibility to provide evidence of a pre-existing fault. The absence of any complaint during the 15 months between supply and repair, despite multiple conversations with Moneybarn, and the lack of documented evidence from the repairing garage regarding poor condition, meant insufficient evidence existed to establish the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied. The manufacturer's discretionary compensation scheme does not establish a defect on this specific car.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website