Not upheld: quality of goods supplied / satisfactory quality complaint against Zopa Bank Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs G purchased a ten-year-old used car via hire purchase from Zopa in December 2024. In May 2025, warning lights appeared and low oil levels were identified. By September 2025, the engine failed due to an apparent timing chain failure after the car had covered only 4,000 additional miles. Mrs G obtained an engineer report concluding the car was not fit for purpose, but Zopa's independent assessment concluded no fault was present at supply. The ombudsman upheld Zopa's position, finding that the timing chain failure resulted from normal wear and tear at the end of its natural lifespan (seven years or 60,000-80,000 miles), not a pre-existing defect. Since the car was drivable for ten months after supply, the fault could not have been present when delivered, and suppliers are not responsible under consumer law for components wearing out in a normal timeframe.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality when supplied. For a ten-year-old car, satisfactory quality must be assessed considering age, mileage, durability, and expected wear and tear. The timing chain, a component with a recommended lifespan of seven years or 60,000-80,000 miles, had not been replaced despite the car being ten years old. The ombudsman concluded the timing chain failure was due to normal age-related wear and tear reaching the end of its natural lifespan, not a pre-existing fault. Since Mrs G was able to drive the car for ten months and 4,500 miles after supply, the fault could not have been present at the point of supply. The supplier is not responsible under the CRA for repairing components that wear out in a normal timeframe.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website