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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr G purchased a brand-new car under a conditional sale agreement with Tesla Financial Services Limited in November 2021 for £49,590.00. Over the course of the agreement, he took the vehicle to the service centre more than 20 times for various issues including trim defects, screen lag, sensor failures, and a noise from the rear suspension area. Most issues were resolved under warranty, and Mr G did not previously request rejection. In September 2025, after the noise issue persisted and allegedly worsened following a fourth service centre visit, Mr G requested to reject the vehicle. The ombudsman did not uphold the complaint, finding no independent expert evidence demonstrating the vehicle currently has a fault making it of unsatisfactory quality, despite acknowledging Mr G's frustration and the multiple service visits required.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality as a reasonable person would consider satisfactory. For a brand-new car, higher quality standards would be expected. However, the ombudsman found no independent expert evidence showing the vehicle currently has a fault making it of unsatisfactory quality. While acknowledging Mr G's frustration and the multiple service visits, the ombudsman noted that most issues were resolved under warranty and Mr G had not previously requested rejection. Crucially, there was no evidence that the noise issue was still present or that it made the vehicle unsatisfactory, and Mr G missed the opportunity for a master technician to investigate.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website