Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mr B purchased a seven-year-old car with 52,000 miles through a hire purchase agreement with Oodle in July 2024. The car had a partial service history and had not been serviced for approximately 30,000 miles prior to sale. After driving approximately 10,000 miles, Mr B experienced fuel pump and related engine issues. He reported problems to the finance broker in December 2024 but obtained unauthorised repairs without documentation. A mechanic's report later identified a scored camshaft likely caused by insufficient servicing. Mr B complained to Oodle seeking to reject the vehicle, but the ombudsman found the evidence did not establish that the faults were present or developing at the point of supply, rather than arising from wear and tear, inadequate prior servicing, and Mr B's own use and maintenance practices. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality, including durability. For a seven-year-old car with 52,000 miles and partial service history, a reasonable person would expect some wear and tear and maintenance needs. While the mechanic identified a scored camshaft likely caused by insufficient servicing, the evidence did not clearly establish whether this fault was present or developing at the point of supply versus arising from Mr B's own use and lack of servicing. The ombudsman noted Mr B had driven nearly 10,000 miles before problems emerged, had not serviced the car himself, had unauthorised repairs without documentation, and had driven 22,000 miles by the time he formally complained to Oodle. The lack of clear evidence linking the current fault to the condition at supply, combined with the car's age, mileage, service history, and Mr B's own maintenance practices, meant the ombudsman was not persuaded the car was of unsatisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website