Not upheld: quality of goods supplied / durability and fitness for purpose complaint against BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6198381 of 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00. quality of goods supplied / durability and fitness for purpose complaint against BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6198381 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-21T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | quality of goods supplied / durability and fitness for purpose |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | No remedy ordered. The ombudsman declined to direct compensation for the missing key as it was not a consequence of failed repairs. The ombudsman reminded BMWFS of their obligations to treat Mr H with forbearance and due consideration when seeking to recover arrears. |
Summary
Mr H purchased a new premium BMW car through a hire purchase agreement with BMWFS in December 2022 for approximately £73,600. The car experienced its first significant failure (rear differential) within 12 months and under 10,000 miles, which was repaired under warranty. However, the car subsequently failed three more times between February and June 2025. Mr H complained that the repeated failures indicated the car was not of satisfactory quality or fit for purpose. BMWFS rejected the complaint, arguing the failures resulted from Mr H's driving style and maintenance. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding that while the initial failure suggested durability issues, the subsequent failures were likely caused by aggressive driving, poor tyre maintenance, and a missed running-in service rather than failed repairs, based on physical evidence including impact damage, illegal tyre tread depth, and prematurely worn brake discs.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
While the ombudsman acknowledged that the car likely wasn't sufficiently durable at the point of supply (given the rear differential failure within 12 months and under 10,000 miles), they concluded that BMWFS had the right to attempt repair. The key issue was whether subsequent failures resulted from failed repairs or from the complainant's use and maintenance. The ombudsman found that the physical evidence—including impact damage, illegal tyre tread depth, uneven tyre wear, prematurely worn brake discs, and the missed running-in service—strongly suggested the problems arose from aggressive and enthusiastic driving rather than failed repairs. The ombudsman was not persuaded by the complainant's testimony alone without supporting documentary evidence, particularly given the objective evidence of vehicle condition.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited, all decisions | 1,453 | 46% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website