Not upheld: quality of goods / satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-6243397 of 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00. quality of goods / satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015 complaint against MotoNovo Finance Limited. Outcome: Not upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-6243397 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2026-04-13T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | MotoNovo Finance Limited |
| Product | hire purchase |
| Claim type | quality of goods / satisfactory quality under Consumer Rights Act 2015 |
| Outcome | Not upheld |
| Remedy | None. The complaint was not upheld. The ombudsman also declined to order MotoNovo to pay storage costs, finding these did not arise from anything MotoNovo did or failed to do. |
Summary
Mr F purchased a used car (6 years old, 67,307 miles) via hire purchase with MotoNovo in March 2023 for £24,394. The car had a non-functioning stop start system and suffered engine failure in June 2025 after 80,125 miles. Mr F complained that hidden faults (defective DPF components) caused the engine failure. An independent investigation concluded the engine failure was likely due to overfilled oil and a significant service gap (no servicing records for 4 years and 51,000 miles prior to purchase), not pre-existing defects. The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and found the car was of satisfactory quality at supply, given its age and mileage, and that the engine failure resulted from poor maintenance after Mr F took possession rather than an inherent defect.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which requires goods to be of satisfactory quality. For a 6-year-old car with 67,307 miles, a reasonable person would expect some worn parts but also reasonable durability. The independent report concluded that the engine failure was not present or developing at the time of sale, but rather resulted from poor maintenance: overfilled oil (confirmed by dealership and independent report) and a significant service gap (51,000 miles over 4 years with no servicing records). The ombudsman found the overfilled oil to be the most likely cause of engine failure, occurring after Mr F took possession. The stop start defect was not connected to the engine failure. Given the car was usable for over 2 years before failure, the ombudsman was not persuaded the defect was present at supply.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| MotoNovo Finance Limited, all decisions | 555 | 45% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website