Upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6242384 of 2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00. Goods and services under S75 complaint against LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6242384 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-06-25T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED |
| Product | Motor finance (PCP / HP) |
| Claim type | Goods and services under S75 |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | Lex Autolease Limited must: (1) Reimburse the monthly payment from 14 August 2025 with 8% simple yearly interest from time of payment to reimbursement; (2) Ensure Mrs W is not responsible for further payments after the car failed; (3) Ensure Mrs W is not responsible for the aborted collection invoice of £120.91; (4) Pay £400 to reflect distress and inconvenience caused; (5) Remove any negative information from Mrs W's credit file relating to the agreement. Lex should treat Mrs W fairly regarding any potential excess mileage or damage charges, given she was on a rolling contract. |
Summary
Mrs W complained about a car supplied under a hire agreement by Lex Autolease in August 2019. In August 2025, after approximately 67,000 miles and with full service history, the timing chain failed, rendering the car undrivable with repair costs quoted at around £18,000. Lex initially rejected the complaint but upheld it when referred to the FOS, offering to reimburse monthly rentals from the failure date, waive collection charges, and pay £400 compensation. Mrs W remained unhappy, seeking additional compensation for hire car costs and concerns about excess mileage charges. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding the car was not of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and agreed that Lex's offer was fair and reasonable, with the addition of 8% simple interest on reimbursed payments.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires suppliers to provide goods of satisfactory quality. Satisfactory quality is assessed by what a reasonable person would expect, considering factors such as age, price, mileage, and durability. The ombudsman noted that Lex itself concluded the car was not of satisfactory quality when it reviewed the complaint, making this point no longer in dispute. By accepting the car back, Lex effectively allowed Mrs W to reject it, which is a remedy available under the CRA. The ombudsman agreed with the investigator that the monthly rental payments represent reasonable compensation for alternative transportation and that £400 fairly reflects the distress and inconvenience caused. The ombudsman declined to comment on earlier DPF issues as these were not referred to the FOS at the time. The ombudsman added 8% simple interest on reimbursed payments as standard practice.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| LEX AUTOLEASE LIMITED, all decisions | 118 | 41% |
| Goods and services under S75, all decisions | 19,872 | 36% |
| Motor finance (PCP / HP), all decisions | 19,840 | 38% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website