Upheld: Irresponsible lending complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd (trading as CA Auto Finance)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6171116 of 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00. Irresponsible lending complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Ltd (trading as CA Auto Finance). Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6171116 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA Auto Finance UK Ltd (trading as CA Auto Finance) |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Irresponsible lending |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | CAF must: (1) end the agreement with no further liability for Ms T; (2) collect the car at no cost to Ms T; (3) remove adverse credit file entries; (4) refund the deposit paid; (5) refund payments made from 19 September 2025 to date of collection; (6) apply 8% simple yearly interest on refunds from date of payment to date of refund; (7) pay £300 compensation within 28 days of Ms T's acceptance of the decision, with 8% interest if paid late. |
Summary
Ms T purchased a used electric car from CA Auto Finance in July 2025 under a personal contract purchase agreement. The car developed a traction control fault on 14 September 2025 and was taken to the dealership, where a software update to the traction battery ECU was performed. The car was returned but broke down again on 3 October 2025 with the same fault. An independent engineer confirmed the faults were present at the point of supply. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality and that the software update constituted the single chance of repair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Since this repair failed, Ms T had the right to reject the car. CAF was ordered to end the agreement, collect the car, refund the deposit and payments from 19 September 2025 with interest, and pay £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car was not of satisfactory quality when supplied, which is not disputed. The key issue was whether the software update in September 2025 constituted the single chance of repair under Section 24(5) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The ombudsman concluded that although software updates are generally routine maintenance, this update was specifically carried out to address the reported traction fault (not as part of routine maintenance schedule), and therefore constituted the single chance of repair. Since this repair failed (the car broke down again on 3 October 2025), Ms T has the right of rejection. The ombudsman rejected Ms T's claims for reimbursement of the replacement car purchase (as it retains value and ownership) and insurance/tax costs (as these are legal requirements providing ongoing benefit regardless of use, and SORN was available as an alternative). The ombudsman upheld the £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience as reasonable under FOS guidelines, rejecting Ms T's request for £1,500.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA Auto Finance UK Ltd (trading as CA Auto Finance), all decisions | 1 | 100% |
| Irresponsible lending, all decisions | 30,675 | 37% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website