Upheld: misrepresentation and unsatisfactory quality of goods complaint against Black Horse Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6157820 of 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00. misrepresentation and unsatisfactory quality of goods complaint against Black Horse Limited. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6157820 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | Black Horse Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | misrepresentation and unsatisfactory quality of goods |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | End the hire purchase agreement with no further liability for Mr B; collect the car at no cost to Mr B; remove adverse credit file entries; refund the deposit paid; refund 10% of all payments made to reflect impaired usage (less £203.25 if already paid); apply 8% simple yearly interest on refunds from date of payment to date of refund; pay £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience (if not already paid, within 28 days with 8% interest if paid late). |
Summary
Mr B purchased a used electric car under a hire purchase agreement with Black Horse Limited on 21 July 2025. During inspection, he identified a hole in the interior headliner that was not visible in the pre-purchase video and agreed to finance the car only on the condition that the dealership would repair this damage. The dealership failed to complete the repair despite attempting to do so internally and externally over a month-long period. Black Horse offered to fund the repair if Mr B sourced a repairer and provided a quote, but the ombudsman found this was unreasonable given the dealership's inability to find one. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding misrepresentation had occurred, and ordered Black Horse to allow Mr B to reject the car with a refund of the deposit and 10% of payments made, plus £150 compensation.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that misrepresentation occurred because the dealership, acting as Black Horse's agent, agreed to repair the headliner as a condition of the sale, but failed to do so. Although Mr B inspected the car before purchase, section 9(4) of the CRA does not apply because he only agreed to proceed on the understanding the repair would be completed, meaning he did not accept the defect. The dealership's failure to repair constitutes either a failed repair under section 24(5) (giving Mr B a right of rejection) or a breach of section 23(2) (requiring repair within a reasonable time without significant inconvenience). It was unreasonable to expect Mr B to find a repairer when the dealership, with expert knowledge, could not do so after a month of trying.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| Black Horse Limited, all decisions | 1,452 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website