Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods and alleged misrepresentation of service history complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6171268 of 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00. unsatisfactory quality of goods and alleged misrepresentation of service history complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6171268 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | MotoNovo Finance Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | unsatisfactory quality of goods and alleged misrepresentation of service history |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. |
Summary
Mrs K purchased a used car through a hire purchase agreement with MotoNovo Finance in July 2024 and later complained that it was not of satisfactory quality. In April 2025, approximately nine months after purchase and after driving over 12,400 miles, the car developed engine knocking and was found to require full engine replacement. Mrs K claimed the car had an oil consumption fault that was present or developing at point of supply, evidenced by her need to add four litres of oil in September 2024, and also alleged the service history had been misrepresented. The ombudsman found no mechanical evidence supporting the oil consumption fault claim and noted that the high mileage driven without repeated oil purchases suggested the car was supplied with low oil rather than having an inherent fault. The service history misrepresentation claim was rejected due to lack of supporting evidence. The complaint was not upheld.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 standard that goods must be of satisfactory quality. While accepting the car currently has engine faults, the ombudsman found no mechanical evidence these faults were present or developing at point of supply. The engineer's conclusion about oil consumption was based solely on the purchase of four litres of oil without supporting mechanical evidence. The ombudsman reasoned that if a serious oil consumption fault existed, Mrs K would have needed to repeatedly purchase oil given her high mileage, but no such pattern was evidenced. The most likely explanation was the car was supplied with low oil levels, not an inherent consumption fault. Regarding the service history misrepresentation claim, no evidence was provided to support that Mrs K was told the car had a full-service history.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| MotoNovo Finance Limited, all decisions | 555 | 45% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website