Not upheld: goods of unsatisfactory quality / breach of satisfactory quality term complaint against BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited trading as Alphera Financial Services

Decision detail

Summary

Mr M purchased a used van under a hire purchase agreement with Alphera in March 2024. The van had initial faults (roof leak, incorrect tyre, faulty glove box light) which were repaired in April 2024. From April 2025 onwards, Mr M experienced recurring engine management light issues requiring multiple repairs including DPF cleaning, replacement, and EGR valve replacement. Mr M complained to Alphera in June 2025 (15 months after supply) and subsequently to the FOS. The ombudsman found the initial faults were present at point of supply but declined to uphold the complaint regarding subsequent faults, as Mr M failed to provide sufficient evidence that these later faults were present or developing at the point of supply rather than arising from subsequent use or repair attempts.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act standard of 'satisfactory quality', considering the van's age, mileage, and history as relevant circumstances. While the initial faults (roof leak, incorrect tyre, faulty light) were present at point of supply and repaired, the subsequent faults from April 2025 onwards could not be established as present or developing at supply. The 15-month delay in reporting further problems, the van's successful MOT in March 2025, the 10,500 miles covered without incident, and the speculative nature of some repairs (particularly the EGR valve replacement that failed to resolve the issue) all suggested the later faults were not inherent defects. The ombudsman concluded the faults would have manifested sooner if they were inherent in the van, and some may have resulted from the repair attempts themselves rather than pre-existing defects.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website