Upheld: rejection of goods and inadequate compensation for faulty car supplied under hire purchase complaint against March FM LLP
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6242229 of 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00. rejection of goods and inadequate compensation for faulty car supplied under hire purchase complaint against March FM LLP. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6242229 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-05-11T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | March FM LLP |
| Product | hire purchase agreement |
| Claim type | rejection of goods and inadequate compensation for faulty car supplied under hire purchase |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Refund £75 insurance cancellation fee; pay 8% simple interest per year on refunded amounts from date of payment to settlement; pay £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by supply of faulty car; remove any adverse information relating to this agreement from Mr L's credit file |
Summary
Mr L purchased a car through a hire purchase agreement with Marsh in July 2025 but discovered a damaged rear seat belt within a week. Marsh agreed the car was not of satisfactory quality and allowed rejection, refunding the deposit and monthly payments, but declined to refund additional costs including a £75 insurance cancellation fee. The FOS investigator recommended refunding the cancellation fee plus interest and paying £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. Marsh initially appeared to accept but then requested the compensation be reduced to £50. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, ordering Marsh to pay the full £100 compensation plus the £75 cancellation fee with interest, finding no valid reason to reduce the compensation amount.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman upheld the investigator's recommendations because: (1) Mr L was clearly caused inconvenience and distress by the supply of a faulty car, justifying £100 compensation with no valid reason provided by Marsh to reduce it; (2) the £75 insurance cancellation fee should be refunded with interest as it was incurred solely due to Marsh's supply of an unsatisfactory quality vehicle, even though Mr L benefited from the insurance itself; (3) other claimed costs (tax, insurance premiums, fuel, valet) were properly declined as Mr L received the benefit of these items; (4) the hire purchase agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement within FOS jurisdiction.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| March FM LLP, all decisions | 1 | 100% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website