Not upheld: vehicle quality (satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015) and agreement administration complaint against BLUE MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED

Decision detail

Summary

Miss S complained about a hire purchase agreement with BMF for a used car supplied in January 2022. She raised multiple concerns including that the vehicle supplied differed from the agreement, her credit file was inaccurate, the agreement's validity was questionable, and the car was of unsatisfactory quality when it developed a head gasket fault in July 2025. A previous FOS complaint had already addressed the agreement's validity and credit reporting accuracy. The ombudsman found that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at supply (the fault likely arising from wear and tear given the car's age and Miss S's extensive use), that BMF acted fairly in terminating the agreement due to arrears and offering a payment arrangement, and that voluntary surrender is a reasonable option if Miss S no longer wishes to retain the vehicle. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which implies that goods must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described. For a used car aged 9 years with 84,500 miles costing approximately £6,000, a reasonable person would not expect the same quality standards as a newer vehicle, but would expect it to be free from major defects and provide trouble-free motoring for a reasonable period. Although the car developed a head gasket fault in July 2025, the ombudsman found no expert evidence confirming an inherent defect at the point of supply. Given Miss S's significant use of the vehicle since January 2022 and the absence of evidence of an inherent fault, the ombudsman concluded the issue likely arose from in-service wear and tear rather than unsatisfactory quality at supply. The ombudsman also found that BMF acted fairly regarding termination (which Miss S ought to have been aware of), the storage dispute (as Miss S continued using the vehicle), and the payment arrangement that was discussed and implemented by both parties. The ombudsman noted that a previous FOS complaint had already addressed the validity of the agreement and credit reporting, so those issues would not be reconsidered.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website