Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods / breach of Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against Specialist Motor Finance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss M purchased a 10-year-old used vehicle through hire purchase with Specialist Motor Finance Limited in May 2024 for £5,048. The vehicle broke down approximately four months later in October 2024, and Miss M reported the fault to both Specialist and the dealership. Despite repeated requests, the dealership refused to inspect the vehicle and directed Miss M to the warranty provider. After obtaining repairs to the turbo and oil filter by April 2025, the vehicle passed an MOT in May 2025 with no DPF advisories. However, a diagnostic report in June 2025 identified significant issues including DPF tampering, missing components, and turbo problems. Miss M complained that the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality and requested rejection. The ombudsman found that while faults were later diagnosed, there was insufficient evidence they were present or developing at the point of sale, particularly given the vehicle's successful MOT and the significant additional mileage driven. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 framework, noting that while a fault was reported within six months (shifting burden to supplier), the key issue was whether faults were present or developing at the point of sale. The ombudsman found that: (1) the initial fault diagnosis was unclear and changed over time; (2) the vehicle passed an MOT in May 2025 with no DPF advisories, which would be unlikely if DPF tampering existed; (3) significant DPF issues including tampering were only diagnosed in June 2025, after the MOT and after Miss M had driven over 1,000 additional miles; (4) the turbo repair may have failed but this does not establish the fault was present at sale; (5) Miss M had driven over 10,000 miles before the first breakdown, which is reasonable for a 10-year-old vehicle; and (6) the ombudsman could not hold Specialist responsible for garages refusing to provide diagnostic information.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website