Not upheld: unsatisfactory quality of goods under hire purchase agreement complaint against Lendable Ltd trading as Autolend

Decision detail

Summary

Mr N purchased a used car via hire purchase with Autolend in October 2024. The 8-year-old car with 75,451 miles had recently passed MOT with no advisories. In December 2024 and February 2025, various issues were identified including worn tyres, brake problems, and corrosion. Mr N complained that the car was of unsatisfactory quality. The ombudsman found that the recent MOT pass with no advisories, combined with evidence that the car had not been used between MOT and supply, demonstrated that major issues developed after supply due to normal wear and the substantially higher mileage Mr N had driven (32,259 miles in 16 months). The complaint was not upheld as the issues were attributable to wear and tear rather than defects present at supply.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality at supply. Since issues were identified within six months, they are presumed to have been present at supply unless evidence shows otherwise. The ombudsman found that the MOT pass on 1 October 2024 with no advisories, combined with the fact that the car had not been used between MOT and supply, demonstrated that headlight, brake, and tyre pressure sensor issues developed after supply. Serviceable items like tyres and brakes naturally wear with use, and Mr N had driven 8,500 miles by the February 2025 inspection. The corrosion issue was linked to the substantially higher mileage the car had done under Mr N's ownership (roughly double the average), not to defects at supply, as the February 2025 health check made no reference to excessive corrosion and the October 2024 MOT showed no corrosion advisories.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website