Not upheld: satisfactory quality of goods; misrepresentation regarding warranty complaint against Oodle Financial Services Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss H purchased a 12-year-old vehicle via hire purchase with Oodle in January 2025 for £5,195. Within months, the vehicle developed mechanical issues including engine overheating, fuel loss, and coolant leaks, which were confirmed by a breakdown recovery service in December 2025. Miss H also claimed a promised 12-month warranty was never provided and that the vehicle failed its MOT in October 2025. The ombudsman found that while faults likely existed, there was insufficient technical evidence to prove they were present at the point of supply rather than developing subsequently due to normal wear and tear. The complaint was not upheld due to lack of definitive proof linking the faults to the time of purchase.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the legal test for satisfactory quality, which requires proof that faults were present at the point of supply, not merely that they developed afterwards. While the evidence suggests faults likely existed, the only technical report was from an emergency recovery service, not an in-depth diagnostic. Miss H's evidence (photographs of coolant and dashboard readings) was insufficient to prove a fault existed in May 2025. The track rod end ball joint failure was consistent with normal wear and tear for a 12-year-old car with 56,768 miles. Without an independent inspection report and lacking technical evidence from May 2025, the ombudsman could not be satisfied the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at supply.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website