Not upheld: quality of goods / satisfactory quality complaint against RCI Financial Services Limited trading as Nissan Financial Services (NFS)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a three-year-old car with 21,453 miles via hire purchase with NFS in January 2023 for £21,227. In June 2025, approximately two years and 47,000 miles later, the car developed engine issues requiring major repair or replacement. Mr B sought rejection of the car and a full refund, arguing it was not fit for purpose and acquired through a misleading sales process. The manufacturer and dealership offered a goodwill engine replacement, which Mr B declined as he wanted an admission of fault. The ombudsman found insufficient evidence that the car was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply, noting that the extended period of use before faults occurred and the lack of adherence to the manufacturer's maintenance schedule meant the complaint could not be upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality. For a used car of this age (three years), mileage (21,453 miles), and price (£21,227), a reasonable person would not expect significant faults shortly after acquisition, but some wear is expected. The ombudsman found that while the car was clearly faulty by June 2025, there was insufficient evidence to prove it was of unsatisfactory quality at the point of supply. The fact that Mr B drove the car for over two years and approximately 47,000 miles before faults occurred suggests the faults were not present or developing at the point of sale. Additionally, the lack of adherence to the manufacturer's maintenance schedule (the car exceeded the recommended interval by 20,782 miles and 18 months) meant the ombudsman could not conclude the car was not reasonably durable. Without independent diagnostic or mechanical reports detailing the cause of the failure, there was insufficient evidence to establish unsatisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website