Not upheld: goods of unsatisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015; rejection of goods; durability of goods complaint against MONEYBARN NO.1 LIMITED (trading as Moneybarn)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L purchased a used car (five years old, 67,000 miles) under a conditional sale agreement with Moneybarn in April 2024. The car developed multiple faults including warning lights, oil leaks, and Adblue system issues within days of supply, for which Moneybarn paid repairs and £50 compensation. Additional faults emerged over eighteen months including engine mount issues, CV boot damage, and rear suspension problems with handling and stability issues. Mr L sought to reject the car and recover half the purchase price. The ombudsman found Moneybarn had adequately remedied the early faults through repairs and compensation, and found insufficient evidence that later suspension issues were present or developing at supply, attributing them to wear and tear given the car's age and mileage. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 satisfactory quality standard, considering the car's age (five years old), mileage (67,000 miles at supply), and price. For early faults appearing within days of supply, the ombudsman found these were present at point of supply and Moneybarn had adequately remedied them through repairs and compensation. For later faults, particularly the suspension issues arising eighteen months after supply when the car had covered over 17,000 additional miles, the ombudsman found insufficient evidence they were present or developing at supply. The inspection report's claim of three-year development was found unconvincing due to lack of detailed reasoning. The ombudsman concluded suspension issues were attributable to wear and tear and the car remained durable given its age and mileage when the issue manifested.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website