Upheld: goods not of satisfactory quality / right to reject complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Limited (trading as CA Auto Finance)
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6192408 of 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00. goods not of satisfactory quality / right to reject complaint against CA Auto Finance UK Limited (trading as CA Auto Finance). Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6192408 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | CA Auto Finance UK Limited (trading as CA Auto Finance) |
| Product | car finance agreement |
| Claim type | goods not of satisfactory quality / right to reject |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | 1. End finance agreement and arrange car collection at no cost to Mr M. 2. Refund advance payment of £8,500. 3. Refund 15% of monthly payments made under the agreement. 4. Reimburse £178.20 for wheel alignment cost. 5. Pay interest at 8% simple annual rate on amounts 2-4 from date of each payment to settlement. 6. Remove any adverse credit file information relating to the agreement. 7. Pay £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. |
Summary
Mr M purchased a used car (3 years old, 26,417 miles, £29,000) under a finance agreement with CA Auto Finance in July 2025. Within 15 days, he reported a low tyre pressure issue and the dealer performed two repairs, but the problem persisted despite Mr M also paying for a wheel alignment. Mr M complained to CA Auto Finance in August 2025 seeking to reject the car, but the firm rejected his complaint. The ombudsman found the car was not of satisfactory quality at supply and upheld Mr M's right to reject it. CA Auto Finance was ordered to end the finance agreement, refund the £8,500 advance payment plus 15% of monthly payments, reimburse the wheel alignment cost, pay £250 compensation, and remove any adverse credit file information.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman found that the car, being only 3 years old with 26,417 miles and priced at £29,000, should have been of satisfactory quality at supply. The persistent tyre pressure issue reported within 15 days, despite two repair attempts by the dealer and a wheel alignment, demonstrated the car was not of satisfactory quality. The ombudsman rejected the firm's argument that minor issues with wear items do not render a car unsatisfactory, finding instead that the durability of components is relevant to satisfactory quality and the repeated failure to resolve the issue after multiple interventions indicated a fundamental defect. Mr M had exercised his right to reject the car after failed repairs.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| CA Auto Finance UK Limited (trading as CA Auto Finance), all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website